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.

MARIANNE B. LECKER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/19/83)

decided: January 19, 1983.

MARIANNE B. LECKER, 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 Marianne B. Lecker, No. B-194961.

COUNSEL

Thomas G. Wagner, for petitioner.

Charles Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Macphail

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 266]

Marianne B. Lecker (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 267]

Review (Board), affirming an order of a referee denying Claimant unemployment compensation benefits by reason of her alleged willful misconduct in leaving work early after she was warned not to do so.

On Claimant's application for unemployment compensation benefits she alleged she was laid off due to a general cutback. Compacted Powdered Metals, Inc. (Employer) informed the Office of Employment Security (Office) by letter that she was not laid off, but rather was discharged for cause and was told the following reasons for her discharge:

Carelessness in her work, not following instructions, (doing work to her satisfaction -- not the companies [sic]). We have had complaints from customers and sales representatives as to Marianne's attitude in handling her job which led to her discharge.

In the summary of the interview presented to the Office, the Employer, by phone, expanded on the reasons for Claimant's discharge by stating:

Claimant had been talked to regarding her attitude and failure to do the assigned work with accordance with the employer's instructions. One day she called a customer over the phone a male chauvnist [sic] pig and she was called on that. She was supposed to give price quotes to customers and she didn't get back to them. Twice she drove her car over the front lawn of the company to get into the parking lot, she was also told about that. She did not perform her duties in accordance with the employer's instructions, and she had been talked to about this before she was discharged.

In its notice of determination, the Office informed Claimant that her claim for benefits was disapproved due to her willful ...


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.