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.

JOHN P. MOYER v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (MOYER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.) (01/14/55)

January 14, 1955

JOHN P. MOYER, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW. (MOYER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.)



Appeal, No. 45, March T., 1954, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 26, 1953, No. B-35047, in re claim of John P. Moyer. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

William J. Cudding, with him Frank J. Toole, Shenandoah, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Rhodes

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 72]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to claimant under section 402 (e) of the Unemployment

[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 73]

Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS ยง 802 (e), which provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week - (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work...." Both the bureau and the referee had rendered similar decisions.

Claimant had been employed by the Freyn Engineering Company, Morrisville, Pennsylvania, as a steamfitter. He was paid $3.17 1/2 an hour. His last day of work was Saturday, March 21, 1953. He had been employed for approximately two weeks.

During this employment claimant boarded in Morrisville during the week while his wife and two children (aged eighteen months and two months) resided in Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.

Claimant remained away from work during the entire week next succeeding his last working day. This constituted a loss of six working days. He did not notify his employer of his intentions to remain away from work nor did he receive permission to do so. During his absence he did not contact his employer in any way.

The Freyn Engineering Company had a rule whereby an unreported absence of more than three days results in an automatic discharge. Upon claimant's reporting for work on Monday, March 30, 1953, he was informed that he was discharged because of his unreported ...


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.