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.

RICHARD R. DINCHER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/08/86)

decided: January 8, 1986.

RICHARD R. DINCHER, 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 Richard R. Dincher, No. B-226062.

COUNSEL

Ronald C. Travis, Murphy, Mussina, Harris, Travis, Rieders & Humphrey, for petitioner.

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

Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 104]

Richard R. Dincher (claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits on the ground of discharge for willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e).

Claimant was employed as a clerk by Don Waltman Meats in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. He was scheduled to work on Saturday, November 5, 1983, but wished to attend a wedding that day. Claimant felt that he had obtained permission from the head of the store, Mr. Waltman (Waltman), to trade his day off on Saturday, October 29, 1983, with a co-worker whose day off was Saturday, November 5, 1983. When claimant reminded Waltman that he had November 5, 1983, off, and to adjust the payroll accordingly, Waltman refused and the two had words over the matter. The crux of the case is whether claimant called his employer a "liar" during the confrontation and whether the actual conduct which did occur constitutes willful misconduct for purposes of the Act.

The challenged findings regarding the events in question were as follows:

3. Claimant thought it [November 5] had been promised to him as a day off with pay. The employer disagreed.

4. Then claimant called the employer a liar in front of an employee.

5. The employer's policy was to permit time off, but not with pay.

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 105]

The other findings, which are undisputed, state merely that the above discussion occurred on October 20, 1983, that on the next day on arriving at work claimant was discharged, and that claimant ...


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.