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.

REPASKY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. HAYDEN v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW. (06/13/62)

June 13, 1962

REPASKY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. HAYDEN, APPELLANT,
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.



Appeal, No. 71, April T., 1962, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-68229, in re claim of George Hayden. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Louis Vaira, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Watkins

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 323]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal in an unemployment compensation case by the employer, George Hayden, from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that the claimant, Helen E. Repasky, was not excluded from coverage as an agricultural worker and that she was entitled to benefits as an employee of a retail market. The Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee had both concluded the claimant was engaged in agricultural labor and were reversed by the board.

The claimant was last employed by George Hayden, of R.D. 3, Elizabeth, Pennsylvania. She was paid at the rate of $1 per hour and worked for 18 months until April 4, 1961. The employer is a farmer who owns a 100-Acre farm and rents 400 additional acres and employs an average of eleven workers. He raises chickens and dairy cattle. The board found that he operated a full-time retail market from his home, selling such items as butter, milk, eggs and poultry and meats; some of these he produces and some he buys wholesale for resale.

The claimant was employed exclusively as a sales clerk in the retail market in the employer's home and

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 324]

    her duties were all performed in this store. She performed no work whatsoever on the farm; neither raised or cultivated any farm product or assisted in any way in the same; and did not raise or care for any livestock or poultry. The findings of the above facts are supported by competent evidence and are binding on this Court. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 116 A.2d 271 (1955).

Section 4(1)(4)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS 753, ...


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.