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.

MARGARET A. O'CONNOR v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/17/80)

decided: April 17, 1980.

MARGARET A. O'CONNOR, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. LEGISLATIVE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (R), PARTY RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Margaret O'Connor, No. B-167836.

COUNSEL

F. D. Hennessey, Jr., with him Margaret A. O'Connor, for petitioner.

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

Joseph W. Murphy, for party respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 574]

Claimant Margaret A. O'Connor appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board

[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 575]

    of Review denying her claim for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1),*fn1 and further determining that claimant's initial receipt of benefits was a recoupable fault overpayment under Section 804(a) of the law, 43 P.S. § 874(a).

While claimant was a law student she worked as a communications coordinator at the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The board denied claimant benefits, reasoning that because claimant had voluntarily left her employment with the House of Representatives to pursue tentative employment in Delaware County, she had terminated without necessitous and compelling cause and therefore was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the law.

On appeal, claimant contends that there is no substantial record evidence to support the board's finding that she voluntarily terminated her employment, and also that the board erred as a matter of law in determining that her separation was voluntary within the meaning of Section 402(b)(1).

Whether an employee's conduct constitutes a voluntary termination is a question of law, the resolution of which is dependent upon the facts as found by the compensation authorities. Lovrekovic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 364-65, 387 A.2d 685-86 (1978).

Claimant maintains that her relocation plans were at all times tentative because she did not have a firm job offer and that she did not quit her job with the House of Representatives, but rather that her position ran out. However, claimant also testified, with regard to the job in Delaware County, that it was clear to her that, "I ...


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.