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.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. RUSSELL STANLEY (02/03/76)

decided: February 3, 1976.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
RUSSELL STANLEY, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Russell Stanley, No. B-125841.

COUNSEL

Robert A. Solomon, for appellant.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 185]

This is an appeal by Russell Stanley (claimant-appellant) from a decision by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which found the failure of claimant-appellant to report for work or notify his employer

[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 186]

    of his absence on two occasions -- for which he was discharged -- constituted willful misconduct under 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), thereby rendering him ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. In so deciding, the Board reversed prior determinations by the Bureau of Employment Security and a referee which awarded benefits. We must sustain the Board.

The factual setting of this case is summarized by the following findings of fact made by the referee and wholly adopted by the Board:

"1. The claimant was last employed by Teltron, Inc. for approximately one year as a whiteroom technician, and his employment terminated on 11/8/74 at which time he was earning $4.35 an hour. He was scheduled to work from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., five days weekly.

"2. The claimant had a high record of absenteeism, and he was warned by the employer that he must improve his attendance record. He was not warned that he would be discharged due to his absenteeism.

"3. The claimant properly reported off with the exception of the last two absences.

"4. Shortly before his discharge the claimant and the employer discussed the decline in business, and it was agreed that 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.