Court Opinion

ID: 9749996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:11:31.737639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:01.278423
License: Public Domain

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. *486Because 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.