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.

CATHERINE R. PATAKI v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/25/84)

decided: October 25, 1984.

CATHERINE R. PATAKI, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Catherine R. Pataki, Nos. B-156548 and B-156549.

COUNSEL

Rabe F. Marsh III, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Acting Chief Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 561]

This unemployment compensation case began in 1975; its resolution requires us to consider portions of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) since repealed and a Federal program since discontinued.

In the early months of 1975, the claimant had two jobs. She worked as a cleaning person for a janitorial enterprise owned by one Bunting and she drove a school bus for the Hempfield Area School District. She voluntarily quit the cleaning job to attend to her four minor children. She was laid off from the school bus driving work when the school session ended. She applied for unemployment compensation with regard to both jobs on June 8, 1975.

To avoid confusion, we will use the word "eligible" to describe persons whose work and earnings entitle them to receive unemployment compensation and the word "ineligible" to describe persons whose work and earnings do not entitle them to unemployment compensation. Workers in the field of unemployment compensation sometimes call the concepts "financial eligibility" or "financial ineligibility." We will use

[ 85 Pa. Commw. Page 562]

    the word "qualified" to describe persons who, being eligible, will receive compensation because their separations from their employments were under circumstances which the Law does not declare to be disqualifying and the word "disqualified" to describe persons who, although eligible, will not receive compensation because the circumstances of their separations are disqualifying under the Law. We provide this small lexicon because both the State and Federal statutes use the words "eligible" and "qualified" and their antonyms interchangeably to describe the status both of persons who are eligible because work and earnings entitle them to compensation and for persons who, being eligible, are not disqualified by the circumstances of their separations from employment.

On June 8, 1975, the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law was as follows:

Section 402(b)(2) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(2), since repealed, provided that an employe should be disqualified from receiving compensation for any week in which his or her unemployment was due to leaving work because of filial or other domestic obligations.

Section 402(b)(4)(7), of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(1)(4)(7), since deleted, provided that service performed for a political subdivision was not "employment" for purpose of the Law, thus ...


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.