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.

Grever v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

February 16, 2010

JOHN ERIK GREVER, PETITIONER
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Senior Judge Flaherty

Submitted: December 11, 2009

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge, HONORABLE JOHNNY J. BUTLER, Judge, HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge.

OPINION

John Erik Grever (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 The Board has filed a motion to strike the extra-record documents attached to Claimant's petition for review before our court and included in Claimant's reproduced record. We grant the Board's motion and affirm.

The Claimant was employed by Firestone Tire & Service (Employer) as a lead technician from May 18, 1998 through October 1, 2008. He was paid a flat rate of twenty ($20.00) dollars per hour. The referee made the following findings of fact which were adopted by the Board:

2. The employer has a policy which prohibits theft of Company goods or services.

3. The claimant was, or should have been, aware of the aforestated employer policy.

4. On October 1, 2008, after the store manager left for the day, the claimant pulled his personal vehicle into an employer bay.

5. The claimant then placed employer merchandise, consisting of two gallons of oil, into the truck (sic) of his vehicle.

6. A co-worker who observed the claimant place the two gallons of oil into his truck asked the claimant if he had paid for it.

7. In response, the claimant said "No".

8. The claimant's co-worker then asked the claimant to put the oil back because he was uncomfortable with the claimant's attempt to steal the oil.

9. The claimant took the oil out of his truck and left the oil at the employers premises and then left for the day.

10. When subsequently questioned by the store manager about the incident, the claimant told the store manager that he had received permission from a ...


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.