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. KENNETH SOLOFF (03/17/76)

decided: March 17, 1976.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
v.
KENNETH SOLOFF, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Kenneth Soloff, No. B-126794.

COUNSEL

Malcolm B. Jacobson, with him Jacobson & Stern, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 93]

This unemployment compensation appeal has a unique issue for our resolution. Is a remand necessary where an employer placed into evidence a letter which allegedly differed materially from that which the employee said he had received and which was submitted after the close of the referee's hearing without the scrutiny of the employee or his attorney?

Kenneth Soloff (Appellant) was denied benefits pursuant to 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), for reasons of wilful misconduct connected with his work, and he concedes that if the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (Board) findings of fact are supported

[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 94]

    by substantial evidence, a denial of benefits would be proper. Those findings state:

"1. The claimant was last employed by Crothall Company Ltd., which is a hospital housekeeping organization, as a manager-trainee at the rate of $230.00 a week. However, in this employment the claimant had total wages in the amount of $414.00.

"2. Claimant started in this employment on December 30, 1974, and his last day of work was January 3, 1975. However, the employer paid the claimant for five additional days.

"3. The contract of hire included four weeks of extensive practical and academic applications in hospital housekeeping; it also included extended hours, split shifts, and weekend duty; the claimant's hours of work were from 7:30 A.M. to 7:30 P.M.

"4. The claimant began work at 7:30 A.M. on Friday, January 3, 1975; at approximately 6:00 P.M. the claimant's supervisor asked 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.