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.

COYLE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (03/24/60)

March 24, 1960

COYLE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 481, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-53359, in re claim of Raymond F. Coyle. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Raymond F. Coyle, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 483]

OPINION PER CURIAM.

Appellant in this unemployment compensation case was denied benefits by the bureau, the referee, and the Board of Review on the ground that he voluntarily terminated his employment and was therefore disqualified under section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS ยง 802(b).

Claimant had worked approximately four years for Chester Czarnecki, Shamokin, Pennsylvania, as a grocery clerk. His last day of employment was March 7, 1959. On that date claimant and his employer engaged in an argument over claimant's performance of his duties. The employer told claimant to follow instructions or leave, whereupon claimant left his employment. When claimant returned for his pay at five o'clock in

[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 484]

    the afternoon of the same day, the employer's wife asked claimant to reconsider and return to work. Claimant refused.

Although claimant left his employment on March 7, 1959, his application for benefits was not filed until May 12, 1959. The reason for his unemployment, as stated in his application for compensation was "drop of business." The board found as follows:

"2. On March 7, 1959, at about 9:15 a.m. the claimant became involved in a discussion with his employer; and was told by the employer that he should either follow his instructions or leave the job.

"3. The claimant was dissatisfied with his working conditions and he elected to quit rather than follow his employer's instructions. Continued employment was available to him had he not quit."

The evidence produced at hearings before two different referees amply supports these findings of the board. Claimant himself stated that on this Saturday morning the employer criticized him because cans of tomato paste were marked with the wrong price, and the employer told him to go home if he could not do his work. The employer testified that he attempted to apologize to claimant at the time of the argument, and ...


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.