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.

COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. LEON F. TURNER (07/13/77)

decided: July 13, 1977.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW
v.
LEON F. TURNER, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Leon F. Turner, No. B-126623.

COUNSEL

George M. Bobrin, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 71]

Claimant was discharged by his employer for excessive absenteeism. The Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) granted benefits and after an appeal by the employer, the referee affirmed the Bureau's decision. The employer then appealed the referee's decision and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversed, finding claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) (wilful misconduct) 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).

The Board found the following facts:

1. Claimant was last employed as a Bobst Operator by Banes & Mayer, Inc., at a final rate

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 72]

    of $210 a week and his last day of work was February 14, 1975.

2. The claimant and his supervisor were the only employes capable of doing the claimant's job, and learning his work required an extensive training period. For this reason the employer was most reluctant to lose the claimant's services.

3. The claimant had a record of excessive absenteeism and failure to call in to report his absences. He had received one written warning and at least four or five oral warnings about this absenteeism and failure to report off.

4. On February 11, and 12, 1975, the claimant was absent. On February 11 he reported off to his shop union steward but not to his employer. On February 12 his wife called the employer and said the claimant had something to do and that he ...


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.