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.

CARL NESMITH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/27/79)

decided: June 27, 1979.

CARL NESMITH, 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 Carl Nesmith, No. B-147473.

COUNSEL

Stanford A. Hines, for petitioner.

Michael D. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Edward G. Beister, Jr., Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 580]

Claimant appeals a determination by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming the referee's denial of benefits on the ground of willful misconduct, pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1

Claimant was discharged from his position with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Assistance (DPA) on July 28, 1976 for "unauthorized absence, insubordination, disorderly conduct, (and) threat of bodily harm to his immediate supervisor." Following his separation, claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which request was denied twice by the Bureau of Employment Security under Section 402(e).

On appeal from the decision of the referee denying claimant benefits, the Board remanded the case for a further hearing before affirming the referee's decision.

[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 581]

From the adverse decision of the Board claimant appeals.

Claimant contends that the Board erred as a matter of law in finding that his conduct constituted willful misconduct where he was reinstated by his employer nine months after his discharge.

We do not agree with claimant's assertion that his reinstatement was proof that the incidents which resulted in his discharge did not constitute willful misconduct. The fact that claimant was reinstated, by agreement between the parties, is not determinative of the issue of claimant's eligibility for benefits during his period of separation under the law.

It is for the referee and Board to determine a claimant's eligibility for benefits in unemployment compensation cases by determining the facts and applying the law. It is not for an employee and employer ...


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.