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.

DENISE M. BIGLEY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/24/78)

decided: November 24, 1978.

DENISE M. BIGLEY, 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 Denise M. Bigley, No. B-146285.

COUNSEL

John M. Silvestri, for petitioner.

Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Macphail

[ 38 Pa. Commw. Page 570]

This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee's decision, denying unemployment compensation benefits to Denise M. Bigley (Claimant).

[ 38 Pa. Commw. Page 571]

Claimant was employed as a stock girl by Zayre Department Store for approximately sixteen (16) months preceding the termination of her employment on January 10, 1977. The Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits which was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) on the basis that the Claimant had voluntarily quit her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature pursuant to the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) 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(b)(1). On appeal, and after a hearing, the referee affirmed the Bureau's decision, finding the following facts, inter alia :

3. Again on January 10, 1977, the claimant talked with the store manager about being transferred, and the manager indicated he would see what he could do.

4. The claimant voluntarily terminated her employment because she felt the store manager was not treating her fair.

These findings of fact are the crux of the Claimant's argument in the instant appeal.

Our scope of review is limited to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination of whether or not the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Meneely v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 613, 369 A.2d 506 (1977).

As we have noted, Claimant was employed as a stock girl, a job which entailed lifting and carrying cartons of oil. In mid-December of 1976 Claimant had a pregnancy test, at the Allegheny Women's Clinic, which proved to be positive. Thereafter, she immediately approached her supervisor ...


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.