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.

DALE ZERFING v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/23/85)

decided: December 23, 1985.

DALE ZERFING, 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 Dale Zerfing, No. B-234222.

COUNSEL

Timothy J. O'Connell, Turner & O'Connell, for petitioner.

Charles Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Jason S. Shapiro, with him, Dana S. Scaduto, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, for intervenor, Reiff & Nestor Company.

Judges Rogers and Barry, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three.

Author: Per Curiam

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 616]

Dale Zerfing (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 claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e), because he was discharged for willful misconduct.

The claimant worked as a machinist for Reiff and Nestor, Inc. (employer), from August 1, 1966 until March 29, 1984 when he brought a CO[2] handgun to work, waved the gun about, threatened people, and disrupted production in his department for two hours. One week before this gun incident, the claimant's supervisor warned the claimant three times in one night about "his running around and his behavior" and told him that if he continued to misbehave he would be discharged. On March 30, 1984, the employer discharged the claimant because of his "actions in the morning of March 29, 1984."

The claimant filed an application with the Office of Employment Security (OES) for unemployment compensation benefits. The OES denied the claimant's application, finding that he had committed acts

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 617]

    of willful misconduct. The claimant appealed and, after a hearing, the referee issued a decision affirming the OES order. On the merits, the referee found:

3. On March 29, 1984, the claimant reported to work with a gun;

5. The claimant's action disrupted the employer's production for ...


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.