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.

WILLIAM O. ROACH v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/12/77)

decided: August 12, 1977.

WILLIAM O. ROACH, APPELLANT
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William O. Roach, No. B-121282.

COUNSEL

Milton D. Rosenberg, 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, Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.

Author: Kramer

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 425]

This is an appeal by William O. Roach (Appellant) from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which denied

[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 426]

    benefits to Appellant 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). Section 402(e) renders ineligible for compensation any employe whose unemployment is due to his discharge or suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work.

The Board made the following findings of fact:

1. Claimant was last employed by Gimbels, at the South Hills Village Shopping Center, as a Department Manager, at $156 per week, from October 27, 1969 until November 3, 1973, his last day of work.

2. On November 3, 1973, the claimant was discharged because he took a set of Corning Ware from the store without having it checked prior to removal by an employee at the Service desk.

3. The employer's rule, which the claimant knew, was that any employe who takes merchandise from the store must first check it out at the Service desk. This rule applies regardless of whether or not the merchandise belonged to Gimbels.

4. The claimant contends that the Corning Ware was not Gimbels merchandise, but he also admitted knowing that even though it was not his employer's property, it ...


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.