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.

EMMA M. LIPFERT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/26/79)

decided: September 26, 1979.

EMMA M. LIPFERT, 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 Emma M. Lipfert, No. B-147651.

COUNSEL

Jerome L. Cohen, for petitioner.

William G. Dade, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 207]

Claimant Emma Lipfert appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which, after a remand hearing, determined that claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e), 43 P.S. ยง 802(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, because her discharge from Giant Market was precipitated by an act amounting to willful misconduct.*fn1

Claimant was a delicatessen clerk. Her discharge occurred on the evening of March 14, 1977 when she admittedly prepared a package for a fellow employee containing a quantity of cheese worth $1.42 at retail, a quantity of salami worth $.99, and a quantity of

[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 208]

    ham worth $1.35. Claimant testified that she did not weigh the goods but nevertheless marked the package with $.89 as the total price.

On appeal claimant alleges that her conduct did not amount to willful misconduct as a matter of law, a question subject to our review. Coulter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 16 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 462, 332 A.2d 876 (1975).

The employer testified that claimant was terminated because she knowingly and willfully priced for sale quantities of merchandise to another employee at a substantially lower retail value than what the merchandise was worth.

Claimant's justification for her action was that she sold the package as "ends". However, the employer stated the amount of merchandise he weighed in the package constituted more than "ends," which are "a few ounces at the most." Further, the employer testified that the sale of end portions at a reduced value must always be authorized by the department or store manager, which did not occur.

The credibility to be given the witnesses and the weight to be given the evidence is for the Board, and not for this court. Borlak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 ...


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.