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.

GEORGE SCHAPPE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/23/78)

decided: October 23, 1978.

GEORGE SCHAPPE, 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 George Schappe, No. B-142606.

COUNSEL

Cyrus Palmer Dolbin, for petitioner.

Reese Couch, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Macphail

[ 38 Pa. Commw. Page 250]

This is a petition for review in the nature of an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a Referee's decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits.

George Schappe (Claimant) was employed as a truck driver by J. Marlin Ernst Trucking Company for a period of eight (8) months preceding his discharge on November 27, 1976. The Claimant filed an application for benefits which was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) on the basis that the discharge was due to willful misconduct as defined in Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e).*fn1 On Appeal and after a hearing, the Referee affirmed the Bureau and found the following facts, inter alia :

3. This was the second accident with a company truck within 30 days.

[ 38 Pa. Commw. Page 2514]

. Both accidents were chargeable to the company according to the Insurance Company.

5. Estimated damage involving the two accidents amounted to approximately $1,200.00.

The Referee held that Claimant's actions amounted to "conduct of a nature that was inimical to the best interests of the employer and conduct of this nature falls below the standard that an employee owes to an employer."

Our scope of review is limited to questions of law and, in the absence of fraud, to a determination of whether the Board's finding of willful misconduct was based upon substantial evidence. Holtzman v. Unemployment Compensation Board ...


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.