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.

ZINMAN v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (05/30/73)

decided: May 30, 1973.

ZINMAN
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Shirley Zinman, No. B-71-1-A-118.

COUNSEL

Bruce E. Endy, with him Harold I. Goodman and Andrew S. Price, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 650]

Shirley Zinman, who seeks unemployment compensation benefits, took a voluntary leave of absence from her position as an employment counselor with L.I.B. Services, an employment agency. During her leave she conferred with her employer concerning resumption of work on several occasions. She finally declined to return to L.I.B. Services because of her dissatisfaction with the working conditions noted below. A referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits on the ground that Mrs. Zinman left her employment without "necessitous and compelling" cause.

Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Exec. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(b)(1), provides:

"An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --

"In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature . . . provided further, That no employee shall be deemed to be ineligible under this subsection where as a condition of continuing in employment such employee would be required . . . to accept wages, hours or conditions of employment not desired by a majority of the employees in the establishment or the occupation. . . ."

The claimant declined to return to L.I.B. Services because she disapproved of several newly instituted office practices including that of recording telephone conversations

[ 8 Pa. Commw. Page 651]

    of employment counselors with prospective employers.

The Board of Review found, inter ...


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.