Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KAMAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/15/60)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 15, 1960

KAMAN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeal, No. 89, April T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-54539, in re claim of Andrew J. Kaman. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Andrew J. Kaman, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

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

Author: Ervin

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 510]

OPINION BY ERVIN, J.

This is another appeal in an unemployment compensation case where the only question is whether the claimant voluntarily retired and went on pension or whether he was compelled to do so by his employer, the Bethlehem Steel Company, Johnstown, Pennsylvania. What we have already said in the case of Mayer Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 504, 161 A.2d 660, we need not repeat here.

In his brief the appellant says: "The action taken by me to retire, in order to avoid being under constant pressure to retire, does not constitute my voluntary retirement." The record however shows that the appellant, in his statement given to the bureau, said: "I could not continue in my work because I was too old, and my fellow employees were [illegible word] about me not going on pension. I did not ask Bethlehem for lighter work. I told them in May that I wanted to retire. I am able and available for work." (Emphasis supplied)

The record also shows that there is no compulsory retirement plan in effect at the Bethlehem Steel Company.

[ 192 Pa. Super. Page 511]

Employees may continue to work as long as they are physically able to do so.

If the appellant had resisted the pressure to retire he would still be employed. His action in retiring, therefore, was voluntary and without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

Disposition

Decision affirmed.

19600615

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.