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.

RUSSELL W. ARBUCKLE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (08/15/83)

decided: August 15, 1983.

RUSSELL W. ARBUCKLE, 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 Russell W. Arbuckle, No. B-205729.

COUNSEL

Robert A. Rosin, with him Howard R. Sklaroff, for petitioner.

Joel G. Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 76 Pa. Commw. Page 365]

Claimant Russell W. Arbuckle appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming a referee's decision to deny benefits on the basis that the employer, Forms, Inc., discharged the claimant because of willful misconduct.*fn1

The question is whether the employer's revocation of a vacation permission was unreasonable.

On September 10, 1981, the claimant, who had been employed by Forms for approximately four years as a finishing operator, submitted a written request to his supervisor for two paid vacation days and four unpaid vacation days beginning October 30, 1981, because the claimant was to be married on October 31, 1981. The supervisor granted that request.

The claimant, who had been working on the day shift, was transferred to the midnight to 8 a.m. shift for one week, beginning October 26, 1981, to train another operator. On October 29, 1981, the claimant reminded his supervisor that his vacation was to begin

[ 76 Pa. Commw. Page 366]

    on October 30, 1981, but his supervisor told the claimant that, because he was on the night shift, he would be required to work on October 30, 1981. After the claimant again requested permission to take the following day off, the supervisor told the claimant that if he failed to work on October 30, 1981, he would be discharged.

The claimant did not work that day, and his employer fired him, asserting that the claimant's failure to report to work that day caused a loss to the employer of approximately $1,000 because no one was available to operate the machine.

The referee based his willful misconduct conclusion on the absence of a replacement for the claimant, and the employer's financial loss when 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.