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.

MOZELLE GOUDY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/14/84)

decided: December 14, 1984.

MOZELLE GOUDY, 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 Mozelle Goudy, No. B-214091.

COUNSEL

Kenneth R. Alford, for petitioner.

Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Counsel, for respondent.

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

Author: Rogers

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 436]

Mozelle Goudy, an unemployment compensation claimant, has filed a petition for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (board), affirming a referee's decision that the petitioner was ineligible for benefits because his unemployment was by reason of his own fault. The authority cited by the referee and the board for the decision was Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 752.

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 437]

Section 3, 43 P.S. § 752, which we reproduce in the margin,*fn1 has been held to provide an independent substantive ground for the disqualification of workers for benefits. See Lybarger Unemployment Compensation Case, 418 Pa. 471, 211 A.2d 463 (1965); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ostrander, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 583, 347 A.2d 351 (1975).

The claimant was employed as a truck driver. His last day of work was February 15, 1982. On his application for unemployment compensation benefits, the claimant reported to the Office of Employment Security (OES) that because he had been charged on December 26, 1981 with several motor vehicle violations, including driving while under the influence of intoxicants, his employer suggested that he take a

[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 438]

    leave of absence until his problems were resolved. He also reported that he was under the impression that he would be able to return to work, if he were found not guilty of the charges. We observe at this point that the December 26, 1982 incident was not connected with the claimant's work.

The claimant's employer reported to OES that the claimant was discharged because he had lost his chauffeur's license and had been driving illegally without having informed the employer.

OES concluded that the claimant's unemployment was "for reasons which are considered willful misconduct in connection with his work because he lost his driver's license due to a violation and was unable to drive a truck," citing Section 402(e), 43 P.S. § 802(e), which declares that persons discharged from ...


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.