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.

PIESTRAK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SUSQUEHANNA COLLIERIES DIVISION M.A. HANNA COMPANY v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (09/20/60)

September 20, 1960

PIESTRAK UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. SUSQUEHANNA COLLIERIES DIVISION OF THE M.A. HANNA COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeals, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Feb. T., 1960, by employer, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Nos. B-50175, B-50240 and B-50239, in re claim of Roman S. Piestrak et al. Appeals certified to Supreme Court.

COUNSEL

S. Keene Mitchell, Jr., with him Bedford, Waller, Griffith, Darling & Mitchell, for employer, appellant.

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

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

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 243]

OPINION PER CURIAM

The three appeals before us involve claims for unemployment compensation during a vacation period.

Roman S. Piestrak, Marlin J. Marose, and Charles Whary, along with a number of others whose claims are dependent upon these cases, were employed by the

[ 193 Pa. Super. Page 244]

Susquehanna Collieries Division of the M.A. Hanna Company.

In accordance with the collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the United Mine Workers of America, the claimants' union, the collieries at which the claimants were employed closed for vacation between June 28 and July 12, 1958. The claimants received vacation allowance from their employer on June 27, 1958, in varying amounts determined by a method provided in the collective bargaining agreement.*fn1 Piestrak, whose wages were $4683.22 during the previous year, receiver $140 vacation pay; Marose, whose wages were $2778.58, received $116; and Whary, whose wages were $2243.48, received $93.

The employer has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board allowing the claimants unemployment compensation in addition to the vacation allowance.

The question is: Are the claimants entitled to unemployment compensation for the vacation period during which they performed no services, and if they are, how is the amount of the compensation to be calculated?

Section 4(u) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 753(u), provides, inter alia, "An individual shall be deemed unemployed (I) with respect to any week (i) during which he performs no services for which remuneration is paid or payable to him 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.