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.

DARIN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (12/11/58)

December 11, 1958

DARIN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 33 April T., 1958, by claimant from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-4-B-674, in re claim of Evelyn Darin. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Arnold D. Wilner, with him Wilner, Wilner and Kuhn, for claimant, appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, with them Harry J. Rubin, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

John G. Wayman, with him Joseph G. Armstrong, III, and Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, for employer, intervenor.

Lloyd H. Fuge, Marjorie Hanson Matson, Richard M. Moss, and Sylvan Libson, filed a brief for American Civil Liberties Union, amicus curiae.

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

Author: Woodside

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 283]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

Evelyn Darin was denied unemployment compensation by the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on the ground that she was discharged from her last employment for willful misconduct connected with her work. See Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS ยง 802(e).

The representative of the Westinghoue Electric Corporation appeared at the hearing and stated that she was an undesirable employe due to left-wing activities and associations. He stated that she had been identified as a member of the Communist Party by Peter G. Leydon, Francis Nestler and Mary S. Beynon, and that because of the widely publicized charges she had brought discredit upon Westinghouse, and that the employer believed her continued employment in this defense industry was not for the best interests of Westinghouse, its employes, the general public and national security.

[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 284]

The referee then asked the claimant whether she was ever a member of the Communist Party. She refused to answer this question. She contended that it had nothing to do with her case, and persisted in her refusal to discuss the question.

The claimant had been subpoenaed to appear before a Congressional Committee, but she became ill and did not appear. She, therefore, did not invoke the Fifth Amendment before any Congressional ...


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.