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.

WARMINSTER FIBERGLASS CO. v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/18/74)

decided: October 18, 1974.

WARMINSTER FIBERGLASS CO., 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 Joan L. Brooks, No. B-118943.

COUNSEL

Richard W. Berlinger, with him Malis, Tolson & Malis, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Blatt

[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 386]

This is an appeal from an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board)

[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 387]

    dated September 18, 1973, which reversed an order of the referee denying the claim of Joan L. Brooks (claimant).

The claimant was employed for approximately five and one-half years as a fiberglass cutter by the Warminster Fiberglass Company (employer), the appellant herein, and her last day of work was September 26, 1972. A history of absences and of recent warnings by the employer had marred her work record. The day before her last day at work, she suffered a cut finger in a non-job related accident and stitches were required. She reported to work on the next day as usual but notified the employer then that she would be absent on the day following to seek medical attention. Her physician advised her then not to return to work until the following Monday, October 2, 1972, and she notified her supervisor on Thursday, September 28, 1972, of this advice and of her intention to remain absent. At that time she also requested permission to leave her home long enough to have a prescription filled and to purchase some groceries for her children. The supervisor, although agreeing that she should have the prescription filled, refused to authorize her absence from home for the purchase of groceries, citing her employer's contract with the claimant's union which prohibited outdoor excursions by employees taking time off for sickness, when such excursions were for non-medical reasons.

Section 3 of the contract in question provides:

"The Union and Management agree on the following sick pay rules clarifications:

"(a) When any employee is out sick under the following Sick Pay Plan he will remain at home unless going to or from the doctor's, picking up a prescription or going to a hospital clinic for x-rays, ...


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.