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.

ROCCOGRANDI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (03/21/62)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


March 21, 1962

ROCCOGRANDI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeals, Nos. 12, 13, and 14, Feb. T., 1962, by claimants, from decisions of Uneployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-63682, B-63683, and B-63684, in re claims of Francis D. Roccograndi et al. Decisions affirmed.

COUNSEL

Jerome L. Cohen, with him Henry Greenwald, and Rosenn, Jenkins & Greenwald, for appellants.

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

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (woodside, J., absent).

Author: Montgomery

[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 373]

OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.

The appellants are all members of a family who are involved in the wrecking business together. Each owns 40 shares of stock in the company which has 205 outstanding shares, and all three are officers of the company. The officers of the company, during periods of insufficient work to employ all the members of the family, hold a meeting and by majority vote decide which members shall be "laid off". It was decided by majority vote of all the stockholders that the appellants would be "laid off" because it was their respective turns. Immediately thereafter claims for unemployment compensation benefits were filed by the three appellants. The Bureau of the Employment Security denied the claims on the grounds that the appellants were self-employed. Upon appeal the referee reversed the bureau and held the appellants to be entitled to benefits. The Board of Review reversed the referee's decision, holding that the appellants had sufficient control to lay themselves off and that they did just that. Therefore the appellants were self-employed and must be denied eligibility for benefits under section 402(h) and section 402(b)(1) of the law.

This case is ruled by DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 612, 177 A.2d 20, in which this Court held that the corporate entity may be ignored in determining whether the claimants, in fact, were "unemployed" under the act, or were self-employed persons whose business merely proved to be unremunerative during the period for which the claim for benefits was made.

Disposition

Decisions affirmed.

19620321

© 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.