Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MIELE v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (MIELE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (11/11/53)

November 11, 1953

MIELE
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (MIELE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



COUNSEL

David H. Kubert, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Ross, Gunther, and Wright, JJ.

Author: Ross

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 204]

ROSS, Judge.

In this unemployment compensation case, the bureau issued a decision ruling the claimant ineligible, which decision the referee, after a hearing, reversed and allowed benefits. The employer, Campbell Soup Company, filed an appeal from the referee's decision and the Board of Review reversed the referee and denied benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b). From that decision claimant has appealed to this Court.

The Board made the following findings of fact:

'1. Claimant was last employed by the Campbell Soup Company, Camden, N. J., and was laid off on May 12, 1952, due to lack of work. The layoff was the result of a labor dispute which commenced on May 12, 1952 midnight.

'2. On May 29, 1952, the labor dispute was declared officially over and the Company's employes, 5,000 in all, were notified to return to work on June 2, 1952. Such notification was made by way of radio announcements and publications in the local newspapers, Evening Bulletin and Philadelphia Inquirer.

'3. The claimant not only did not peruse the newspapers nor listen to the radio in an effort to ascertain when work would again be available for her, but she likewise failed to contact the company in an attempt to resume the employment relationship. As a result, when the plant resumed production, claimant did not again become gainfully employed.'

At the hearing before the referee the claimant testified that she saw nothing in the newspapers to indicate that the strike was over at the employer's plant and that she could return to work. Further, she testified that she was depending upon written notice through the mail to call her back to work because 'When I started to work there they gave me a week

[ 174 Pa. Super. Page 205]

    off and I got mail to go back to work, so I was depending on it again.' At a further hearing before the Board the claimant testified that on the day she was laid off the forelady told her and others in her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.