acknowledging that “the issue is not whether the employer had the right to discharge for the questioned conduct of the employee, but rather whether the [Commonwealth] is justified in reinforcing that decision by denying benefits under [the UC Law] for the complained of conduct”
How later courts described this case
- acknowledging that “the issue is not whether the employer had the right to discharge for the questioned conduct of the employee, but rather whether the [Commonwealth] is justified in reinforcing that decision by denying benefits under [the UC Law] for the complained of conduct”
- stating, "[a]lthough an employer may lawfully discharge or suspend an employee for a policy violation, this Court will not allow an employer policy to command whether an employee is ineligible for benefits"
- statement of legislative policy in Section 752 must be considered in interpreting all other provisions of UC Law
- “[S]ection 3 of the [Law] . . . must be considered when construing all other sections of the [Law.]”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*604 PAPADAKOS, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent and adopt the well-reasoned opinion of the Commonwealth Court.