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.

JOHN L. DELUCA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (11/28/84)

decided: November 28, 1984.

JOHN L. DELUCA, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of John L. DeLuca, No. B-214289.

COUNSEL

David A. Scholl, for petitioner.

Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Doyle, Palladino and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Doyle

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 190]

John L. DeLuca (Claimant) appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the decision of the referee denying benefits.

Claimant was employed as a "debit insurance agent" for the Peoples Life Insurance Company (Employer). Although he was compensated on a commission basis, Claimant was guaranteed a minimum of eighty-five dollars per week regardless of the amount of work he completed. After being terminated from his employment, Claimant was denied unemployment compensation benefits by the referee who determined that Claimant's work was not "employment" as that term is defined by Section 4 (1) (4)(17) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 The referee's

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 191]

    decision was affirmed by the Board, and this appeal followed.

Section 4 (1) (4)(17) of the Law states, in pertinent part:

(4) The word "employment" shall not include --

(17) Service performed by an individual for an employer as an insurance agent or real estate salesman or as an insurance solicitor or as a real estate broker . . . if all such service performed by such individual for such employer is performed for remuneration solely by way of commission. . . .

In his appeal, Claimant argues that the referee erred in finding that his work was performed solely upon a commission basis, in view of the eighty-five dollars per week minimum he was guaranteed ...


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.