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.

TAMARA L. UNGARD v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/03/82)

decided: March 3, 1982.

TAMARA L. UNGARD, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Tamara L. Ungard, No. B-180680.

COUNSEL

Paul Porell, with him Lenore M. Urbano, for petitioner.

Joel G. Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Blatt

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 128]

Tamara L. Ungard (claimant) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which, pursuant to Section 402(e) of

[ 65 Pa. Commw. Page 129]

    the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), and because of her willful misconduct, affirmed a referee's denial of benefits. The Board also found that the claimant was the recipient of a fault overpayment subject to recoupment pursuant to Section 804(a) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 874(a).*fn1

The claimant was hired as a full-time waitress by Soup & Scoop (employer) and had worked for approximately six weeks prior to her discharge on October 13, 1979. The Board found, inter alia,:

2. The claimant was dismissed on October 13, 1979, because she had restricted her availability for work and she would not follow her employer's instructions concerning the service of customers.

3. The claimant had been hired as a full-time employee and had indicated at her time of hire that she could work nights and weekends. However, in mid-September she informed her employer that she could not work Monday, Tuesday or Thursday nights, all of which were scheduled working days because she would be attending classes on these evenings.

4. The claimant had been warned previously concerning her improper service of customers and her improper utilization of time. However, despite receiving explicit instructions on ...


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.