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.

FIDELITY ELECTRIC CO. v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/12/79)

decided: April 12, 1979.

FIDELITY ELECTRIC CO., INC., 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 Barry Geller, No. B-149005.

COUNSEL

Anthony P. Schimaneck, with him Lawrence J. Keating, and Morgan, Hallgren & Heinly, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 632]

This is an appeal by Fidelity Electric Co., Inc. (employer) from an award of unemployment compensation benefits to claimant by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). We affirm.

Claimant was employed by the employer as a machinist from June 1975 through February 21, 1977 when he was discharged. He applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but the referee found he was ineligible to receive them because the conduct which precipitated his dismissal constituted willful misconduct within the meaning of 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). Claimant appealed to the Board which reversed. This appeal followed.

Employer asserts that claimant's absenteeism and tardiness, in addition to his failure to apply himself to his tasks, amount to willful misconduct. However, from looking at the record we can find adequate evidence for the Board's findings of facts 2, 3 and 4:

2. The claimant's work performance did not measure up to the employer's standards.

[ 41 Pa. Commw. Page 6333]

. The claimant was discharged as an unsatisfactory employee.

4. The claimant performed his assigned tasks to the best of his ability.

The claimant lacked the capability to be a machinist. When questioned by claimant's attorney the ...


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.