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.

SUE FALLACK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/08/79)

decided: January 8, 1979.

SUE FALLACK, 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 Sue Fallack, No. B-147331.

COUNSEL

Maurice Pollon, for petitioner.

John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 565]

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denied claimant's application for benefits based on the following Finding of Fact.

2. Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment because she was dissatisfied with the working conditions; also, she wished to relocate in Florida.

We affirm.

Claimant became dissatisfied with her work when, in January, 1974, her office location was moved, increasing her travel time. One of the reasons for the move was to have her work on accounts payable put on a data processing system. She was reassigned other accounting work but her pay was not reduced. Although dissatisfied with her new work assignment she continued to work until May of 1976. She learned of possible job opportunities in Florida, quit, and went to Florida.

An examination of the record, and especially claimant's own testimony, amply supports the Board's finding.

A hearing on claimant's application was held in Florida with the Florida referee conducting that hearing

[ 39 Pa. Commw. Page 566]

    as an Agent for Board. Claimant objects that she did not have an opportunity to cross-examine her employer's representative or to present rebuttal testimony. She has requested a remand for this purpose. We do not see that a remand is appropriate, especially under these circumstances where the burden ...


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.