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.

ERIC KRETSCH v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/11/84)

decided: June 11, 1984.

ERIC KRETSCH, 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 Eric J. Kretsch, No. B-205985.

COUNSEL

Eugene Daniel Lucas, for petitioner.

Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 170]

Claimant Eric J. Kretsch petitions for review of the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1

[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 171]

Employed for ten months by Beloit-Manhattan, Inc. as a lab technician, the claimant also did some computer programming, at a salary of $210.00 per week. He is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a Bachelor's Degree in Science, and has attended one year of graduate level study in Computer Science at Marywood College.

On January 14, 1982, the claimant was instructed to shovel snow from the walkways outside the employer's plant. The claimant refused, stating that he was not properly dressed to shovel snow because he had no boots, gloves or heavy clothing other than suitable for walking from the car to the building, and that he did not believe snow removal was part of his duties. The claimant was then furloughed for the remainder of the week. Upon his return on January 18, 1982, he was again asked to shovel snow. Once again he refused. The claimant was immediately discharged.

The Board's findings included the following:

3. Claimant was discharged from this employment because he refused to shovel snow from off the sidewalk.

4. Claimant refused the assignment because he thought it was the employer's way of retaliating against him for a complaint the claimant had recently made; the claimant considered the assignment a form of harassment on the part of the employer.

5. The employer asked the claimant to shovel snow because the snow needed to be removed, the claimant was available, and employes are asked to take on ...


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.