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.

LEONARD J. MENDELSON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/19/79)

decided: June 19, 1979.

LEONARD J. MENDELSON, 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 Leonard J. Mendelson, No. B-148116.

COUNSEL

Antonio D. Pyle, for petitioner.

John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Elsa D. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Justin Blewitt, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Crumlish

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 399]

Leonard J. Mendelson was declared ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits by a referee of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) for having voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, 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). His appeal to the Board was denied.

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 400]

We affirm the Board.

Mendelson was employed for nine years by K-Mart as a salesman and stock clerk at a rate of $2.90 per hour before termination on April 16, 1977. Prior to termination, Mendelson had a conference with an employer representative in which his poor work performance was discussed. Mendelson was told to either improve his performance within 30 days or face possible discharge. The referee found that, after discussing the warning with his wife, Mendelson elected to quit and gave employer a two-week notice on April 1, 1977. He then applied for unemployment compensation benefits.

Mendelson's appeal to this Court posits these issues:

I. Did the referee base his findings of fact upon substantial evidence in the record?

II. Did the manner in which the referee conducted the hearing deprive Mendelson of due process of law?

Mendelson contends that he was discharged, and that testimony relative to the two-week termination notice is hearsay. This is unsupported by the record ...


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.