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.

ROBERT E. TORSKY (A.K.A. ROBERT E. SHAW) v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/25/84)

decided: April 25, 1984.

ROBERT E. TORSKY (A.K.A. ROBERT E. SHAW), 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 Robert E. Torsky, No. B-214295.

COUNSEL

Harry S. Geller, for petitioner.

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

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

Author: Barry

[ 81 Pa. Commw. Page 643]

Robert E. Torsky (a/k/a Robert E. Shaw) (claimant) appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which determined

[ 81 Pa. Commw. Page 644]

    that claimant was ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, and specifically under Section 402(b)(1), 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), on the ground that claimant voluntarily quit his job as a laborer for Hepburn Orchards (employer) during a period of approximately three months in 1982. In so finding, the Board reversed a decision of the referee, who concluded that claimant was entitled to benefits under the Law because he was involuntarily terminated by the employer. The referee relied on Section 402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(e).

Claimant was employed initially to thin peach trees and after a period of time, to pick peaches. (T. 6). The record reveals that he was not meeting production standards and was told by his employer on July 26, 1982, that if he did not meet the standards on the following day, he should not bother reporting back to work on July 28. (T. 3). On July 27, 1982, claimant missed the production standard by two buckets. When he failed to pick the required amount of peaches on July 27, claimant assumed that he was automatically terminated. The following morning, however, claimant returned to his place of employment because he wanted to talk to his employer about his employment status. At the hearing, claimant explained why he returned to his place of employment on July 28:

Well Terry [Hepburn] [Vice-President of the orchard] told us Monday night after he had the talk with us that he would come in Tuesday night to talk with us to see what we were going to do. Well he never showed up Tuesday night after work. So the reason I went into work Wednesday morning, the 28th, was to talk to

[ 81 Pa. Commw. Page 645]

    him . . . but the foreman out there said well just go to work till Terry comes ...


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.