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.

M. GLEYN HINDS v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/26/84)

decided: April 26, 1984.

M. GLEYN HINDS, 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 M. Gleyn Hinds, No. B-201064.

COUNSEL

Helen R. Kotler, for petitioner.

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

Judges MacPhail, Palladino and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 69]

M. Gleyn Hinds (claimant) appeals here an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which reversed the referee's decision to award benefits and denied the claimant benefits for failing to prove a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily terminating her job as a tax accountant with Rockwell International (employer). Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(b).

[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 70]

The Board's findings of fact included the following:

1. The claimant was last employed as a tax accountant by Rockwell International from July 27, 1953, at a final rate of $1,184.00 a month and her last day of work was June 19, 1981.

2. On June 19, 1981, the claimant voluntarily terminated her employment because she believed it had an adverse effect upon her health.

3. The claimant had been given additional duties in May 1980 and sometimes her work-load caused her to work overtime, but she worked less overtime then [sic] most of the employes in her department.

4. The claimant had been advised by her doctor to take a two week recuperation period in February 1981; the claimant was not entitled to sick leave for two weeks and she used only several days of vacation time for recuperation.

5. Prior to her last day of work the claimant had not seen her doctor for five or six weeks, and had not had to be absent for illness during 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.