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.

JAMES GROSSKINSKY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/15/82)

decided: November 15, 1982.

JAMES GROSSKINSKY, 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 James Grosskinsky, No. B-193947.

COUNSEL

Janet L. Braun, for petitioner.

Karen Durkin, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 19]

The claimant in this unemployment compensation case having been discharged from his employment applied for benefits giving the Office of Employment Security (OES) as the reason for his unemployment that he was laid off for lack of work. The employer

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 20]

    notified the OES that the claimant had been discharged for advising the customers of the employer's paint store to take their business elsewhere.

The undisputed facts are that the claimant had been given a probationary term as manager of one of the employer's stores. At the end of the trial period the employer decided that the claimant would not fit the bill as a manager, told him so, but offered him his old position of salesman at salary greater than that which he received when he had last been a salesman. This action angered the claimant.

The employer testified after he told the claimant he could not be manager that he learned from others that the claimant had told other salesmen employed by the business that he intended to tell customers that they should not buy from the employer; that he then confronted the claimant with this information and that claimant apologized and explained his conduct as the product of his disappointment and bitterness at not having retained his promotion and that this led the employer to conclude that the claimant had indeed talked to customers in the vein threatened, although the claimant never expressly admitted this. After considering the matter for a day or so, the employer discharged the claimant. The employer also testified as follows:

Well I would like to say that when Jim told the salemen [sic] our own salesmen, that he was going to threaten to tell our customers that they should take their business elsewhere, if we had retained Jim, I'm not sure that the cooperation would have been there between the salesmen and Jim. In other words, it would have been felt that Jim was no longer a team player, so to speak. Whether he would actually go out and tell the people or not, it was implied that he was going to. And the salesmen and the store

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 21]

    people have to work together because the store people help the salesmen filling orders, getting leads for the salesmen to go out on new business. So they have to work together and I don't ...


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.