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.

MICHAEL T. PANDOLA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/18/81)

decided: August 18, 1981.

MICHAEL T. PANDOLA, 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 Michael T. Pandola, No. B-186498.

COUNSEL

Terry L. Fromson, for petitioner.

Stephen B. Lipson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 363]

Claimant had been employed pumping gas for Yellow Cab (employer) until he was discharged in February, 1980. In acting upon his application for benefits, the Bureau of Employment Security found him ineligible for benefits and liable for recoupment of those payments he had already received. Claimant appealed the decision to the referee, who affirmed both that portion of the Bureau determination which held him ineligible under Section 401(d) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Act)*fn1 because he was not realistically attached to the labor market during the weeks in question, and that portion dealing with recoupment. Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the decision of the referee in

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 364]

    a detailed Order. Again claimant appealed, asking this Court whether, as a matter of law, his conduct during the period prior to the hearing negated his attachment to the labor force, and whether he can be found liable for recoupment under Section 804(a) of the Act, 43 P.S. ยง 874(a).

The Board made six findings of fact in this case, of which three are material to this appeal.

3. The claimant was discharged by his employer for missing too much time. However, the claimant reported off his absences, and he had a valid excuse for each absence.

4. During the claim weeks at issue, the claimant was not available for work because he was waiting for a resolution of his unemployment compensation claim.

6. The claimant informed the Office of Employment Security at the time that he initially filed for benefits that he was ...


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.