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.

DATI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. AMERICAN BAG AND PAPER COMPANY v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (06/11/57)

June 11, 1957

DATI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. AMERICAN BAG AND PAPER COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1957, from order of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Sept. T., 1956, No. B-42533, in re claim of Alice Dati. Order reversed.

COUNSEL

M. Kalman Gitomer, with him Blank, Rudenko & Klaus, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 184 Pa. Super. Page 293]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an unemployment compensation case in which the appellant employer discharged Alice Dati,

[ 184 Pa. Super. Page 294]

    an employee claimant, because of willful misconduct. The bureau and the referee had denied compensation. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed the referee, found for the claimant and the defendant company appealed to this Court.

The board found as a fact that the claimant stopped her machine in defiance of instructions from her superior, an inspectress, to start her machine and resume working and that the claimant used abusive language to her superior and told her she could stop her machine whenever it was necessary.

The question involved is whether the claimant is eligible for unemployment compensation with the above findings of fact by the board under Section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, 43 PS ยง 802 (e) where it is provided that, "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."

We are not impressed by the argument that a single instance of misconduct is usually not such as to bring an employee within the prohibition of Section 402 (e). The important element is the misconduct itself and how seriously it affects the claimant's employment or employer and certainly no hard or fast rule could be made to cover this situation. The cases so hold. In Detterer Unemployment Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Superior Ct. 291, 77 A.2d 886 (1951), the Court stated at page 294, "'Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of ...


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.