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.

PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/02/79)

decided: October 2, 1979.

PENNSYLVANIA ENGINEERING CORPORATION, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW AND ROSEMARY TRINCIANTE, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Rosemary Trinciante, No. B-160039.

COUNSEL

Frederick S. Patti, for petitioner.

Antonio D. Pyle, for respondents.

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

Author: Blatt

[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 306]

The Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (employer) appeals here from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which granted unemployment benefits to Rosemary Trinciante (employee).

The employee was hired as a secretary-typist on June 27, 1977. On February 17, 1978, she was asked by her immediate supervisor to take a letter by dictation and to type it, which she did. Her supervisor, however, was not satisfied with the finished letter and indicated this to her. Relations between the two then became strained and she was placed on probation, and, when the situation failed to improve, her services were terminated on March 3, 1978. Her initial application for unemployment benefits was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) on the grounds that she was discharged for willful misconduct and thus ineligible under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law). She appealed this determination and the referee who held the hearing on her appeal affirmed the Bureau's decision after making the following relevant findings of fact:

2. The claimant was discharged for insubordination and uncooperative attitude.

3. On February 17, 1978 a confrontation occurred between the claimant and her immediate supervisor regarding the claimant's quality of work.

4. On February 20, 1978 the claimant was placed on probation for the above mentioned incident.

5. The claimant was counseled and informed that her cooperation and attitude must change.

[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 3076]

. The claimant continued with her actions and ...


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.