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 STAUB v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/13/85)

decided: June 13, 1985.

JOHN STAUB, 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 John Staub, No. B-226660.

COUNSEL

Paul Auerbach, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Karl A. Fritton, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, for intervenor, Abington School District.

Judges Rogers, MacPhail and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 95]

John Staub (Petitioner) appeals from the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying his claim for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e).

Petitioner was employed as a part-time bus driver by the Abington School District (Employer) from January, 1983 until his termination on March 18, 1983. On March 18, 1983, Petitioner was discharged due to unsatisfactory job performance.

Petitioner was found eligible for benefits by the Office of Employment Security (OES) and the Employer appealed. After a hearing, the referee reversed the OES determination and found Petitioner to have been discharged for driving under the influence of alcohol, conduct which amounts to willful misconduct. Petitioner appealed the referee's decision to the Board, which affirmed the referee. The instant appeal followed.

Before this Court, Petitioner, who appeared pro se at the referee's hearing, argues that his rights of due

[ 90 Pa. Commw. Page 96]

    process were violated when the referee proceeded with the hearing although Petitioner refused to waive his right to representation by counsel and where the issue of driving while under the influence was raised for the first time at the hearing, without prior notice, and these facts were used by the referee as the basis for his decision that Petitioner had engaged in willful misconduct.

After his opening remarks and the swearing of the witnesses at the May 19, 1983 hearing, the referee ...


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.