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.

HURLEY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (12/12/63)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


December 12, 1963

HURLEY UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeal, No. 158, April T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-76105, in re claim of James P. Hurley, Sr. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

James P. Hurley, Sr., appellant, in propria persona.

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

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

Author: Rhodes

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 167]

OPINION BY RHODES, P.J.

In this unemployment compensation case benefits were denied claimant under section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended, 43 PS ยง 802(b)(1), for the reason that his unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

The bureau, the referee, and the board denied benefits under section 402(b)(1).

Claimant was employed by Sweeney's Restaurant, Belle Vernon, as a bartender, earning $67.50 per week for nine years. His last day of work was July 13, 1960. Claimant became dissatisfied with his work because the man hired to work with him at the bar was inexperienced. When the employer complained about reports that customers were walking out because they had not been waited on promptly, claimant quit his job. At the hearing claimant also stated that his employers had slot machines and he did not "feel like working with slot machines."

Continuous employment was available to claimant, and the burden rests upon him to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating his employment. Domico Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 327, 32,, 181 A.2d 731.

[ 202 Pa. Super. Page 168]

The claimant's reason for leaving cannot be considered a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. It appears that the primary reason for leaving was his dissatisfaction with his helper. The fact that the establishment may have had slot machines was not the reason for claimant's quitting his job.

Our review of the testimony indicates that the board's findings are fully supported by the evidence and show claimant's disqualification under section 402(b)(1) of the Law.

Disposition

The decision is affirmed.

19631212

© 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.