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.

FRANK COLACHINO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/14/82)

decided: December 14, 1982.

FRANK COLACHINO, 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 Frank Colachino, No. B-193788.

COUNSEL

O. Randolph Bragg, for petitioner.

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

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

Author: Craig

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 354]

In this unemployment compensation case, claimant Frank Colachino has appealed from a denial of benefits after his employer, a manufacturing concern, terminated him from his job as a machine operator on the ground of willful misconduct, for failure to work overtime when requested.

Unchallenged board findings 3 and 4 establish that the claimant was aware of the seasonal nature of the industry, requiring mandatory overtime between July and the end of the year. The claimant's appeal questions other findings which read:

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 3555]

. Claimant was verbally warned regarding his failure to work scheduled overtime on July 26, 1980.

6. Claimant was scheduled to work overtime September 20, and 21, 1980, and the work order was posted several days in advance.

8. Claimant was told that if he did not work the required overtime, he would not have a job to come back to on Monday.

An additional finding, that the claimant refused to work the required overtime for personal reasons, is undisputed.

The claimant, in addition to questioning the record basis for the three findings quoted above, contends that his refusal to work was justified by necessity, and also claims that we should remand for a new hearing because the referee did not advise him of his entitlement to counsel and other rights, as required by 34 Pa. Code ยง 101.21(a), Katz v. ...


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.