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.

HOLLAND v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (01/03/72)

decided: January 3, 1972.

HOLLAND
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Doris L. Holland, Decision No. B-107967, Appeal No. B-70-7-D-192.

COUNSEL

Richard C. Shomaker, with him Anthony A. Barrante and Barrante, Barrante & Shomaker, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Manderino and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Manderino.

Author: Mencer

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 293]

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying benefits to Doris L. Holland (claimant) under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e), which provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -- * * * (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, * * *." Both the Bureau of Employment Security and the referee had rendered similar decisions.

The Findings of Fact of the Board were as follows:

"1. The claimant was last employed by Burger King, Incorporated, Allison Park, Pennsylvania, as a manager at $150.00 a week plus a commission for six

[ 4 Pa. Commw. Page 294]

    and a half months. Her last day of work was April 2, 1970.

"2. On claimant's last day of work she was discharged for violation of the company rules concerning attendance at work and hours of work.

"3. Claimant had knowledge of the company rules and procedures.

"4. The claimant's condition of employment was based on a requirement that she work fifty-four hours per week and, in particular, her hours were designated from 8 to ...


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.