Court Opinion

ID: 9746733
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:35:17.799354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:16.396108
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority, but write separately because of my concern that the requisite burden of proof in questions of determining the eligibility of a claimant for unemployment compensation may be confused as a result of the majority’s opinion.
In Philco Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 Pa. 101, 242 A.2d 454 (1968), we stated:
*532Since the purpose of our unemployment compensation system is to compensate an individual when work has been denied him through no fault of his own, logically the test of whether a work stoppage resulted from the strike or lock-out requires us to determine which side, union or management first refused to continue operations under the status quo after the contract had technically expired, but while negotiations were continuing.
430 Pa. at 103, 242 A.2d at 455.
This analysis requires the factfinder to determine from the factual circumstances presented which side bore the initial responsibility for the refusal to continue operations during negotiations. It should not be interpreted, however, to require an employer to establish in the first instance that its activities did not result from a lockout. The burden of proof of establishing eligibility for benefits rests with the claimant. Upon presentation of sufficient evidence to indicate that the work stoppage resulted from a lockout, the burden of persuasion may shift to an employer, but the burden is not placed upon the employer in the first instance. To the extent that the majority opinion may be interpreted otherwise, I must disagree.
McDERMOTT, J., joins in this concurring opinion.