# Hoffman v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 27, 1990 · 524 Pa. 470

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749996

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth E. HOFFMAN, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, and Joy Manufacturing Company, Intervenor, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 27, 1990
- **Citations:** 524 Pa. 470; 574 A.2d 57; 1990 Pa. LEXIS 94
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Nix
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749996

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9749996. Public record. Not legal advice.