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.

DANIEL M. AXELROD v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/03/83)

decided: February 3, 1983.

DANIEL M. AXELROD, 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 Daniel M. Axelrod, No. B-195626.

COUNSEL

Daniel M. Axelrod, petitioner, for himself.

James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 538]

In this appeal by claimant Daniel Axelrod from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the only question is whether the employer actually discharged the claimant, or the claimant instead resigned from his position as a consulting engineer with the employer, United Engineers.

From the record of the hearing, at which no witness appeared on behalf of the employer, we first note the claimant's testimony that, on two occasions, June 16 and August 1, 1980, a supervisor told him that he "should" get a job, or another job; we agree with the referee, whom the board affirmed, that those remarks constituted neither a discharge nor compelling cause for a voluntary quit.

Our decision depends upon later events. After August 1 of 1980, the claimant apparently began a leave

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 539]

    of absence to pursue his independent candidacy for the office of President of the United States. Then followed some correspondence which is determinative:

Under date of September 19, 1980, United Engineers wrote a letter to the claimant seeking contact with him, stating that the writer "would appreciate your call one day early next week."

By letter of September 21, the claimant answered with a letter suggesting written communication but forbidding the company correspondent to "call or communicate verbally until I designate otherwise. . . ." (Apparently, the claimant's view was that oral communication, in the ...


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.