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.

JAMES J. AMADO v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA. (AMADO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (01/14/55)

January 14, 1955

JAMES J. AMADO, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. (AMADO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



Appeal, No. 250, April T., 1954, by claimant, from order of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated July 27, 1954 decision No. B-37136, in re claim of James J. Amado. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Charles E. McKissock, Pittsburgh, for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Frank F. Truscott, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ. (gunther, J., absent).

Author: Woodside

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 507]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.,

This is an appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's denial of the appellant's claim for unemployment compensation on the ground that his unemployment was "due to voluntarily leaving work without good cause" within the meaning of Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. 2897, § 402 as amended by the Act of August 24, 1953, P.L. 1397, § 4, 43 PS § 802.

There is no dispute as to the material facts in this appeal and they may be summarized in the following manner:

The claimant was last employed as a credit manager by the Bond Clothing Company in Pittsburgh at a weekly wage of $85, from October 1952 until March 6, 1954. On or about February 27, 1954, the claimant informed his employer that he intended to resign from his employment on March 31, 1954 as he had hopes of obtaining employment elsewhere.

The employer took steps to secure a replacement for the claimant and accordingly a new employe was hired for the position of credit manager on March 1, 1954.

When the employer determined that the new employe could satisfactorily perform the work he notified the claimant that his services would not be needed after March 6, 1954, since the company could not use two employes in the same capacity. The claimant was

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 508]

    therefore terminated on March 6 and given one week's pay for the ...


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.