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.

EMES UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (09/16/60)

September 16, 1960

EMES UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SYLVANIA ELECTRIC PRODUCTS, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeal, No. 39, Oct. T., 1960, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-50830-B, in re claim of Marie Andros Emes. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

O. William Vanderlin, with him McNerney, Page & Vanderlin, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Montgomery

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 232]

OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.

This is an appeal by the employer, Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review refusing to allow it relief from charges under § 302(f) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P.S. § 782(f)) on account of compensation paid to Marie Andros Emes, its employee.

Mrs. Emes had been employed by appellant as a tube tester from January 9, 1957, until October 5, 1957, when she requested and received a pregnancy leave of absence for 18 months expiring April 5, 1959. On April 18, 1958, she notified her employer that she was again available for work but was advised that there was no work available and that her name would be placed on the recall list in accordance with her seniority. She then applied for unemployment compensation and her claims were approved for the week ending April 20, 1958, and for subsequent weeks. No appeal was taken by the employer from these allowances.

On August 28, 1958, Mrs. Emes was recalled to work on the third shift, but she declined to return because "her husband did not want her to work the third shift because of the necessity of staying home with her children." Her one child was then 7 months old and her

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 233]

    other was 28 months. The Bureau approved her claim for compensation for the week of August 31, 1958, and stated, "Claimant was recalled by her last employer on August 28, 1958, for work on third trick. Claimant was unable to accept this trick due to home obligations. However, she is able and available for first trick or second trick. Claimant has good cause for not accepting third trick work and is therefore eligible for benefits." The employer did not file an appeal from the allowance of this claim but did file a timely request under § 302(f) for relief from the charge of same against its reserve account and assigned as reason therefor that employe "Requested and was granted an excused absence for 18 months due to pregnancy. Reapplied 4/8/58, no work available. Placed on recall list. Recalled 8/28/58 for third shift work. Unable to accept due to home obligations."

Upon denial of its application for relief by the Bureau, the employer duly appealed and its application was subsequently refused by the Referee and Board. This appeal followed.

Section 302(f), which provides for the crediting and debiting of an employer's account with contributions thereto and benefits paid therefrom, contains the following provision: "Provided, That if the department finds that such individual was separated from his most recent work for such employer due to being discharged for willful misconduct connected with such work, or due to his voluntarily leaving such work without good cause attributable to his employment, thereafter no compensation paid to such individual ...


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.