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.

GREENAWAY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/12/63)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 12, 1963

GREENAWAY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeal, No. 44, April T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-74301, in re claim of Walter E. Greenaway. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Walter E. Greenaway, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

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

Author: Wright

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 81]

OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.

Walter E. Greenaway was last employed as a mail clerk in the United States Post Office, Portage, Pennsylvania. His final day of work was November 24, 1961, on which date he retired to accept a pension under the employer's optional retirement plan. His application for benefits was disallowed by the Board of Review on the ground that he had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and was therefore disqualified under the provisions of Section 402(b) (1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, 402(b) (1), 43 P.S. 802(b) (1). This appeal followed.

The employer's pension plan permits an employe to retire at age 55, provided he has 35 years service. Claimant in the case at bar was 59 years of age and had 43 years service. When asked by the Referee why he left work, he replied, "I reached retirement". The Board found that claimant voluntarily terminated his employment because he felt that he was physically unable to perform his duties, that he did not request lighter work, that claimant was actually able to work, that he was not laid off or discharged, and that continuing employment was available. Although claimant contends that that the Board's findings of fact "are incorrect", our examination of the record reveals that they are fully supported by the testimony. We are therefore bound by them: Whalen Unemployment Compensation Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 77, 191 A.2d 742. This appeal is ruled, inter alia, by Craven Unemployment Compensation Case, 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 136, 169 A.2d 336, and Zelek Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 228, 166 A.2d 110.

Disposition

Decision affirmed.

19630612

© 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.