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.

WELEX v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/26/82)

decided: July 26, 1982.

WELEX, INC., 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 Maresca, No. B-185431.

COUNSEL

Herbert G. Keene, Jr., with him Sandra A. Girifalco, Stradley, Ronon, Sevens & Young, for petitioner.

Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, with him Joel G. Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 641]

Welex, Inc., as employer, appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which categorized claimant Michael Maresca's departure from Welex as a discharge rather than as a voluntary quit, enabling the claimant to collect benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act.*fn1

The board's findings of fact include:

3. The claimant was discharged by his father, who was the plant manager for the claimant's employer. The claimant's father had the power to hire and fire employees, including the claimant, and there was no collusion between the claimant and his father in this matter.

[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 6424]

. The claimant worked at all times to the best of his ability and would have remained employed if permitted to do so.

The employer challenges these findings, asserting that the claimant was dismissed by his father, a plant manager, following a meeting in which his father's superiors decided not to promote the claimant. The employer contends that the father, in firing the claimant, acted without authority. Furthermore, the employer argues that the claimant's failure to return to his position after becoming aware that the employer had not acceded to his "discharge" further indicates that the claimant's departure constituted a voluntary quit.

In the hearing before the referee, the claimant's father discussed the meeting involving his superiors in which the claimant's career was considered:

The purpose of that meeting we had, the three of us, was on my request to, I wanted to make [the claimant] a permanent employee, that was the purpose of the meeting and it was rejected by [the employer's vice-presidents] and the reason given was because, that [one of the vice-presidents] said that [the claimant] had an introvert personality, o.k. and for that reason I was specifically told that the purchasing manager was to be put on permanent disability effective that month and Michael ...


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.