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.

CLYDE ALTEMOSE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/12/82)

decided: November 12, 1982.

CLYDE ALTEMOSE, JR., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. EFFORT FOUNDRY, INC., INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Clyde Altemose, Jr., No. B-156360-C.

COUNSEL

John J. Robinson, Jr., for petitioner.

William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

No appearance for intervenor.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 646]

Clyde Altemose, Jr. (claimant) appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied him benefits on the basis that he voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn1

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 647]

The claimant was employed by the Effort Foundry, Inc. (employer) as a grinder. He testified that, upon the advice of his physician, he informed his employer that an ailment involving particles in his left eye made him unable to perform his duties. His employer then offered him a position on the second shift (3:30 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.) which would not involve grinding, but the claimant responded that he could not "hack" second shift and he refused to discuss or consider the job any further.*fn2 A few days after quitting, however, he returned to his former employer and asked if he could have the second shift job. The position having already been filled, he then applied for benefits. The Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security found him to be eligible and he received approximately $1322 in benefits for the weeks November 5, 1977 through January 21, 1978. On January 26, 1978, the Bureau revised its determination and found that Section 402(b)(1) of the Law rendered him ineligible for benefits because his unemployment was due to his voluntary termination of his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The Bureau also determined that he had received a non-fault overpayment under Section 804(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. ยง 874(b), for the weeks he had received benefits. Upon appeal, the referee agreed that the claimant was ineligible under Section 402(b)(1) and in addition, even though neither side challenged the Bureau's Section 804(b) determination, found that the claimant had received a $1322 fault overpayment and ordered that it be recouped*fn3

[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 648]

    under Section 804(a) of the Law. The claimant then appealed to the Board which, discussing the voluntary termination issue but not the repayment order, affirmed the referee's decision. The instant appeal followed.

Before us the claimant first argues that the evidence in the record does not support the Board's findings. It is well-settled that a claimant, in order to be eligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Law, must bear the burden of proving that his or her voluntary termination of the employment relationship was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 304, 387 A.2d 998 (1978). And where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has not prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether an error of law was committed or competent evidence 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.