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.

LOUIS FRUMENTO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/20/74)

decided: February 20, 1974.

LOUIS FRUMENTO, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, APPELLEE, AND DOMINICK STAFFIERI, INC., INTERVENING APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Louis Frumento, No. B-116320.

COUNSEL

Marvin F. Galfand, with him Dragon, Verlin & Galfand, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

John C. Wright, Jr., for intervening appellee.

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

Author: Mencer

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 65]

This is an appeal by Louis Frumento from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him unemployment compensation benefits.

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 66]

Frumento had been employed by Dominick Staffieri, Inc. (employer), as a compressor truck driver for approximately three years. In January of 1972, Frumento advised his employer that he had been elected judge of election and that it would be necessary for him to miss work on primary and general election days. The employer then told Frumento that permission for missing work on these two days would depend on the volume of work at the time. On April 24, 1972, Frumento advised his employer that he would miss work the next day, which was primary election day. His employer refused to give Frumento the day off and warned him that he would be discharged if he did not come to work. Frumento did not report for work and was discharged.

Frumento's application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security on the basis that his discharge resulted from his wilful misconduct. This determination was reversed by a referee upon appeal by Frumento. The referee's determination was then reversed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which found Frumento ineligible to receive benefits because his discharge was for wilful misconduct. Frumento then brought the present appeal.

Our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973). The sole issue presented by this appeal is a question of law; namely, whether or not Frumento's refusal to work on primary election day because he was judge of election is wilful misconduct.

Section 402(e) 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.