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.

KAMA CORPORATION v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/14/80)

decided: October 14, 1980.

KAMA CORPORATION, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW AND ROBERT J. RAYNO, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert J. Rayno, No. B-173626.

COUNSEL

Terrence J. Herron, with him Martin D. Cohn and Lawrence B. Cohn, of Laputka, Bayless, Ecker & Cohn, P.C., for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondents.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 244]

Petitioner (claimant), an employee of Kama Corporation (employer), was absent and properly reported off due to illness on February 5 and 6, 1979. On February 7, 1979 employer terminated claimant on the basis of excessive absences.

Claimant's application for benefits was disapproved by the Bureau of Employment Security and that disapproval affirmed by a referee, following a hearing, based on the "willful misconduct" provision of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e). Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which reversed the decision of the referee and granted benefits to claimant. The employer's appeal from the decision of the Board is now before us.

The employer first asserts that the Board made findings of fact not supported by substantial evidence. The Board found:

2. The claimant was absent February 5 and 6, 1979, due to illness.

[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 2453]

. The claimant properly reported off for February 5 and 6, 1979.

4. The claimant was discharged February 7, 1979 because of his absences.

The Board's findings were supported by claimant's testimony that he called in early on each of the two days of absence, that he offered to get a doctor's certificate, and that on February 7, 1979 he was terminated based on those absences. While the facts of the case are in dispute, we are bound by the findings of the Board ...


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.