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.

ZONDLER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (11/16/61)

November 16, 1961

ZONDLER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 311, Oct. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-64214, in re claim of Walter H. Zondler. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Walter H Zondler, appellant, in propria persona.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).

Author: Montgomery

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 398]

OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

The appellant was last employed by F.J. Stokes, Philadelphia, Pa. His last day of work was October 11, 1960. On various occasions during the last year of appellant's employment he was warned because of acts constituting insubordination.

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 399]

A short time prior to appellant's last day of work he held a pencil close to a female co-worker's face and made stabbing motions, extremely upsetting her. On October 11, 1960 appellant again held a pencil close to the co-worker's face and she became hysterical. For this and previous series of acts of insubordination the appellant was discharged.

The Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Board of Review all concluded that the appellant was ineligible to receive benefits under section 402(e).

Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law provides, in part, that an employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week: "(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work. ..."

The question in the present case is whether the appellant's disrespectful treatment of a co-worker was a disregarding of the standards of behavior which his employer had a right to expect of him and therefore ...


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.