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.

LINDA I. FERA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/14/79)

decided: November 14, 1979.

LINDA I. FERA, 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 Linda I. Fera, No. B-154715.

COUNSEL

George R. Price, Jr., for appellant.

William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Craig

[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 316]

Linda I. Fera, claimant, appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which denied benefits to her under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937)

[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 3172897]

, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e), the willful misconduct disqualification.*fn1 We affirm the board.

Claimant was discharged by her employer, the Stroehmann Brothers Company, for leaving the work site without notice to or permission from her immediate or higher supervisor. She left the site after receiving a number of stern and apparently dramatic reprimands from her supervisor concerning her own work and overall production difficulties. After returning to her home, she called the plant superintendent to report her absence and the underlying incident.

Claimant here attacks several findings of the board, and also alleges an error of law in the determination of "willful misconduct."

Initially, she challenges a finding as to the existence of a written company rule regarding abandoning the job site as being unsupported by any evidence other than testimony of the employer's witness, contended by claimant to be in violation of the best evidence rule. We reject that challenge because that testimony was entered without objection by claimant. As noted below, Finding No. 9 was supported independently of the challenged testimony.

Specifically, the determination of willful misconduct is substantiated by ...


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.