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.

JOHN D. HASELEU v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/19/74)

decided: February 19, 1974.

JOHN D. HASELEU, 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 John D. Haseleu, No. B-115671.

COUNSEL

Jacob A. Myers, with him M. A. Della Vecchia and Evashwick, Brieger & Capone, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Mencer

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 97]

John Haseleu (Haseleu) had been employed by McMillen & Baer Volkswagen, Inc., for approximately two years. He had originally been hired on a part-time basis as a carhop while still attending high school. His hours of work were from 3:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.

In June 1972, Haseleu began working full time performing other duties, including painting, in addition to his work as carhop. This full-time work was temporary and was only to last until July 17, 1972, at which time Haseleu was to start trade school.

On June 27, 1972, Haseleu started work about 10 a.m. Approximately 1 p.m., his employer discovered him walking about the premises with a paintbrush in his hand. There was a conflict of testimony on what happened next, but the referee found as a fact that the employer told Haseleu either to start painting or go home. Haseleu then left but returned at 3:30 p.m. to perform his carhop duties. At this time his employer told him he had been replaced.

Haseleu was denied unemployment compensation benefits as a result of the referee's determination that his unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed. This appeal then followed.

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 98]

Our scope of review in unemployment cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Hinkle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 512, 308 A.2d 173 (1973). We hold that the referee and the Board erred as a matter of law in determining that Haseleu's unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work. We therefore reverse.

Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as ...


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.