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.

ARNOLD R. SMALL v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/06/80)

decided: August 6, 1980.

ARNOLD R. SMALL, 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 Arnold R. Small, No. B-168359.

COUNSEL

Doreen S. Davis-Rosenfeld, with her James T. Lynn, III, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, for petitioner.

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

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

Author: Blatt

[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 376]

Arnold R. Small (claimant) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing his appeal of a referee's decision. The referee determined that the claimant had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and was therefore disqualified under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(b)(1). The claimant argues (1) that he did not voluntarily terminate his employment and (2) that, if he did, it was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

The claimant was employed by the United States Internal Revenue Service and was engaged in undercover surveillance of fellow employees. He testified

[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 377]

    that, when his activities were discovered, he began to receive threats and that the union representing the employees filed suit naming him and other officials of the Internal Revenue Service. Subsequently, and apparently without any relationship to his undercover activities, his superiors accused him of "administrative failures". The following facts were found by the referee, and affirmed by the Board:

2. Approximately two months prior to the last day of work, the claimant was advised by the Divisions Chief that charges were to be brought against him because of his failure to perform certain duties.

3. At this time, the claimant was requested to resign but refused.

4. Subsequently hearings in this matter were held by the Division Chief on 6/1 and 6/23/78.

5. After the hearing on 6/23/78, the claimant agreed to resign if the employer would drop ...


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.