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.

GARY J. GUTH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/15/84)

decided: March 15, 1984.

GARY J. GUTH, 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 Gary J. Guth, No. B-201923.

COUNSEL

Gary J. Guth, petitioner, for himself.

Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Williams

[ 81 Pa. Commw. Page 80]

Gary J. Guth (claimant) petitions, pro se, for review of the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying benefits to him under the provisions of Section 402.1(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802.1(1), for the weeks ending July 18, 1981, July 25, 1981, August 1, 1981, August 8, 1981 and August 15, 1981.

The claimant was last employed by the Abington School District (Abington) as a long term substitute teacher for the 1980-81 school year. His last day of work for Abington was June 30, 1981.

Prior to June 30, 1981, he received a letter from Abington's Administrative Assistant for Personnel Services, which advised him that his long term substitute teaching assignment would terminate with the close of that school year and that, although there was

[ 81 Pa. Commw. Page 81]

    very little chance that Abington would need his services as a long term substitute teacher in the 1981-82 school year, he would be contacted should such a position become available in the future. This letter also advised the claimant that according to Abington's policy his name would be placed on a list from which Abington would fill its needs for per diem substitute teachers in the 1981-82 school year. The claimant made no response to this letter nor did he make any effort to prevent his name from being placed on the list.

At some time between the end of the 1980-81 school year and the beginning of the 1981-82 school year, the claimant relocated with his wife from the Abington area, which is in Montgomery County, to Castanea, Pennsylvania, which is in Clinton County. His wife had obtained a teaching position with the Keystone Central School District (Keystone) for the 1981-82 school year. At some time after June 30, 1981, the claimant also placed his name on the substitute teaching list of Keystone and of the Williamsport Area School District (Williamsport).

In his brief, the claimant has presented a multitude of "questions" for our review; however, in the interests of clarity and brevity, we have distilled his objections to the Board's adjudication as follows: (1) did the Board err as a matter of law when it concluded that, during the weeks at issue, there was reasonable assurance that he would return to school employment for the 1981-82 school year and (2) did the Board abuse its discretion by denying his requests for a remand hearing and for an opportunity to present oral argument to the Board.

Section 402.1(1) provides for the exclusion of certain employees of educational institutions from ...


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.