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.

VANCE C. GALLAGHER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/20/78)

decided: July 20, 1978.

VANCE C. GALLAGHER, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Vance C. Gallagher, No. 136067.

COUNSEL

Peter H. Shaffer, for appellant.

Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Mencer

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 600]

This appeal is from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's determination that Vance C. Gallagher (claimant), having been dismissed for willful misconduct

[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 601]

    connected with his work, was ineligible for benefits. See Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn1

The claimant was employed as a bartender at Zima's Restaurant in Butler, Pennsylvania. The referee made only three findings of fact:

1. The claimant was last employed as a Bartender for approximately seven months by Zima's Restaurant, at the rate of $165 per week. The claimant's last day of work was March 4, 1976.

2. On March 5, 1976, the claimant was enjoying his day off and was in the employer's establishment that evening, when he called the employer's girl friend an unsavory name.

3. The employer dismissed the claimant because of the name-calling, and the confrontation that took place.

In willful misconduct cases, the burden of establishing the claimant's ineligibility is placed upon the employer, and our scope of review is limited to questions of law and to a determination of whether or not the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence. The question as to whether or not a claimant's conduct constituted willful misconduct is, of course, one of law and subject to our ...


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.