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.

NICK HARBUTZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/03/73)

decided: October 3, 1973.

NICK HARBUTZ, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Nick Harbutz, Jr., No. B-113366.

COUNSEL

Neal R. Cramer, with him Jubelirer, McKay, Pass & Intrieri, for appellant.

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

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 236]

Nick Harbutz, Jr. (Harbutz) was denied unemployment compensation benefits as a result of a referee's

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 237]

    determination that Harbutz had been discharged for willful misconduct. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed. We affirm.

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

"An employee 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. . . ."

Although Section 402(e) does not define the term "willful misconduct," we have accepted the definition approved in Harmer Unemployment Compensation Case, 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 270, 272, 213 A.2d 221, 223 (1965): "'Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.'" See Fields v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 200, 300 A.2d 310 (1973).

Harbutz was last employed as a bartender by the Finleyville Hotel, Finleyville, Pennsylvania, and was in its employ from March, 1968 through March 18, 1972. The ...


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.