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.

JARRETT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (12/28/56)

December 28, 1956

JARRETT UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeal, No. 196, April T., 1956, from order of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-41205, in re claim of Ruth H. Jarrett. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

John C. Wayman, with him Leonard L. Scheinholts, John W. Wishart, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, special Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

Albert C. Shapira, for intervenor.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.

Author: Woodside

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 492]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversing the

[ 182 Pa. Super. Page 493]

    referee's order and allowing benefits to the claimant on the ground that the claimant's unemployment was not "due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" within the meaning of section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended by the Act of August 24, 1953, P.L. 1397, section 4, 43 PS ยง 802. From the allowance of benefits, the employer has appealed to this Court.

The claimant, Ruth H. Jarrett, had been employed by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation for a period of three years and three months, commencing in January, 1952. Claimant, while in the employ of the company, was married on July 11, 1953. She was a member of the Association of Westinghouse Salaried Employes, which was the bargaining representative for the employes of the company in her category. In accordance with a local supplement to the agreement entered into between the union, as the bargaining representative of the employes, and the company on June 18, 1952, the claimant lost her seniority rights as a result of her marriage. The supplemental agreement provides as follows: "When a woman becomes married she will have no seniority rights with regard to reduction in force or upgrading but she may continue employment."

The claimant was continued in her employment for a period of approximately twenty-one months subsequent to her marriage until, on March 31, 1955, the company directed a reduction in force at the establishment. Since in such a situation the Westinghouse workers are retained in their employment on the basis of seniority, this claimant, ...


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.