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.

COSCHI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (05/13/58)

May 13, 1958

COSCHI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 51, Oct. T., 1958, by claimant from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, August 15, 1957, No. B-45279, in re claim of Frank Coschi, Jr. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Benjamin Kuby, with him Klovsky and Kuby, for appellant.

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

Peter Platten, with him Hamilton C. Connor, Jr., for intervening appellee.

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

Author: Woodside

[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 155]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying unemployment compensation to him because he was discharged for willful misconduct connected with his work. The bureau had denied him compensation, the referee allowed him compensation and the board denied it to him.

Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law 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;..." 43 PS ยง 802 (e).

In an opinion filed this day (Gagliardi Unemployment Compensation Case) we have reviewed the law relative to this statutory provision. Much of what was said there is applicable to this case, but there is no reason to repeat it here.

[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 156]

The claimant had been employed by the Philadelphia Transportaion Company for 15 years as a trolley car operator, and was discharged on April 10, 1957.

The company's rules require that each customer deposit the tokens or money for his fare in the fare box, and prohibits the operators from depositing any such tokens or money in the box for the customer. If the customer does not have the change, he is required to obtain it from the operator and to personally deposit the fare in the box. This company rule is obviously a very important one, and violation of it has been held by this Court to be sufficient cause to discharge an ...


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.