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.

SHUSTER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (06/11/58)

June 11, 1958

SHUSTER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. WHEATLAND TUBE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeals, Nos. 45 to 50, inclusive, March T., 1958, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, April 16, 1957, No. B-44200, in re claim of Harry C. Schuster. Decision reversed.

COUNSEL

Samuel A. Schreckengaust, Jr., with him McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Woodside

[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 225]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

The claimant, Harry C. Schuster, an employe of Wheatland Tube Company, worked until June 29, 1956, at which time the employer's plant shut down for an announced vacation period of one week, July 2, 1956 through July 8, 1956. For economic reasons, the claimant's department remained closed at the end of the vacation shutdown for an additional two weeks due to lack of work.

On June 29, 1956, claimant received three weeks vacation pay in the amount of $342.62, one week of which was specifically paid for the announced vacation shutdown period of July 2, 1956 through July 8, 1956.

Claimant filed his application for benefits on July 9, 1956, but the Bureau of Employment Security disapproved the claims for the weeks ending July 15 and July 22, 1956, because the "Claimant received three weeks vacation pay at the time of the plant shutdown."

Claimant appealed from the bureau's determination and the referee affirmed the decision of the bureau and denied the claims stating that claimant "must be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because he was not totally unemployed during the period herein involved within the meaning of section 401 as defined in section 4(u) of the Law and Bureau Regulations 108".

Upon appeal, the Board of Review held that claimant was eligible for benefits and reversed the decision of the referee. The employer then appealed to this Court.

Section 4(u) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1937, as amended, 43 PS ยง ...


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.