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.

FRED HAGER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/31/84)

decided: October 31, 1984.

FRED HAGER, 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 Fred Hager, No. B-211221.

COUNSEL

Louis R. Dadowski, for petitioner.

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

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

Author: Barbieri

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 8]

Fred Hager, Claimant, appeals here the decision of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits under the provisions of Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 (willful misconduct).

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 9]

Claimant's application for benefits was first approved by the Office of Employment Security (OES), but appeal resulted in denial of benefits by a referee. On subsequent appeal to the Board, the case was remanded to the referee for further hearing as Hearing Officer for the Board. Following the Board's consideration thereafter benefits were denied and this appeal followed.

The facts simply stated are that the Claimant was employed as food service director for the employer, St. Barnabas, Inc., a convalescent home, until his last day of work on May 24, 1982. The Board's principal findings are that the Claimant was employed in this post for eleven months; that the largest fund-raising event of the year was a Founder's Day Dinner, scheduled for June 6, 1982; that Claimant was advised by the director of operations the week before his last day of work that she had engaged a food service consultant to assist in this major event because, in her opinion, Claimant would need assistance since some other events run by Claimant had not worked out satisfactorily; that Claimant informed the director of operations on the morning of May 24, 1982, that he would not work with a consultant for the Founder's Day Dinner on June 6, 1982 "because he would consider it an affront to his professional ability."*fn2 The following findings were made by the Board:

6. The director of operations requested the claimant to reconsider his decision and the claimant agreed to do so.

7. Later in the afternoon of May 24, 1982, the claimant informed the director of operations that his decision not to work with the consultant at the Founder's Day Dinner still stood.

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 108]

. At that point, the director of operations informed the claimant that his services would not be needed, and the claimant's employment ...


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.