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.

ROBERT P. LENTZ v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/26/79)

decided: June 26, 1979.

ROBERT P. LENTZ, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT; PHOENIX CLOTHES, INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert P. Lentz, No. B-131810-F.

COUNSEL

Lucinda Gannon, with her Karl E. Friend, for petitioner.

Harvey Freedenberg, with him David E. Lehman, and McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for intervening appellee.

Judges Rogers, DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 545]

In this unemployment compensation case, claimant was discharged for excessive absenteeism and the local office of the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) approved benefits on June 27, 1975. Within the allotted time, the employer, Phoenix Clothes, a division of Genesco, Inc. located in Allentown, sent to the Bureau's local office a petition for appeal from its decision. The signature and address of appellant was designated as "Phoenix Clothes by: Reed, Roberts Associates, Inc., 650 Smithfield St., Suite 920, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."

The central finding of fact in the long procedural history of this case is that the notice of the hearing on the original appeal, mailed August 4, 1975, was mailed to Phoenix Clothes at its Allentown address, but that

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 546]

    no such notice was mailed to the employer's representative, who petitioned for the appeal.

The hearing was held before a referee as scheduled on August 11, 1975, at which neither the employer nor his representative appeared. The referee awarded claimant benefits under a decision dated August 20, 1975. Again, this decision was mailed to the employer at its local address, but not to the employer's representative.

When, in 1976, claimant filed an application for benefits for a second benefit year, the Bureau again granted benefits and employer by its representative again filed an appeal.

This time, a fully contested hearing was held, and the referee disallowed benefits, concluding that claimant was discharged due to excessive absenteeism, which constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed.

After several Board reconsiderations of this case, this court, upon a stipulation of the parties, ordered the case remanded to the Board for the purpose of taking additional ...


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.