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.

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

November 16, 1961

MILLER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 280, Oct. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-63485, in re claim of William Miller. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Charles Wright, for appellant.

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 394]

OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review holding that the appellant, William Millers, is disqualified from receiving

[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 395]

    benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

The appellant was last employed by the Glassman Glass Company, Philadelphia, Pa. His last day of work was August 20, 1960 upon which date he was injured during the course of his employment and thereafter was confined to St. Mary's Hospital from August 20 to September 17, 1960.

Subsequent to his discharge from the hospital he appeared at the employer's place of business in a condition indicating he had been drinking. The purpose of his visit was to collect vacation pay which he claimed was due him, not to return to work. Since the appellant was in debt to the employer for certain advances he was not entitled to receive any vacation pay, and payment therefore was refused. As a result of this refusal appellant entered into an argument using abusive and profane language, and as a result the employer removed his name from the payroll. Although he was able to return to wark on November first, claimant testified he never did return to work.

The Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Board of Review all concluded that the claimant's unemployment was due to his being discharged from work for willful misconduct and he, therefore, was disqualified from receiving benefits.

Three hearings were held before the Referee. The appellant failed to appear at the first hearing. At the second and third scheduled hearings, held as a result of the appellant's filing his petition for appeal, the appellant ...


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.