Opinion

Hoffman v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW

  • 524 Pa. 470
  • 574 A.2d 57
  • 1990 Pa. LEXIS 94
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Apr 27, 1990
Status
Published
Author
Nix
On the bench
Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
Cited by
9 cases

The opinion

NIX, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

In the present situation we are not reviewing the characterization of the original work stoppage, but rather we are seeking to employ the “Vrotney” test where the question is whether the character of the work stoppage has changed. In the latter case, the majority has permitted the party who concededly initiated the work stoppage to benefit from a presumption that any subsequent offer to restore an employment relationship was reasonable. Such a result will in my judgment work an unfairness to both management and employees. The character of a work stoppage should remain intact until the party seeking to alter that character sets forth facts establishing the reasonableness, both economic and otherwise, of an offer to resume employment. *486 Because I believe that the majority’s distortion of the “Vrotney” test will be unfair to both parties in future application, I must now dissent.

McDERMOTT, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.