Bechtel v. Commonwealth
Opinion
Opinion by
George D. Bechtel (Claimant) has been denied benefits under the provisions of Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §752.1
[459] Prior to being terminated on January 18, 1977, Claimant had worked sixteen years for his employer as a truck driver and warehouseman. He was dismissed as an employee because his license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended for one year following his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating 'liquor. This was his second arrest for that offense. On the first occasion, his employer permitted him to work as a warehouseman for the duration of the suspension. Although Claimant was led to believe that he would receive similar consideration from his employer on this occasion, instead his employer dismissed him and told him to seek unemployment benefits because the employer could not “work it out” this time.
. The only issue presented by Claimant is whether the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review erred as a matter of law when it decided that Claimant should be denied benefits under Section 3 of the Law where Claimant’s accident and subsequent arrest [460] occurred while Claimant was on his own personal business and in his own personal vehicle. This specific issue was recently addressed by our Court and decided adversely to Claimant’s position in Huff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11, 396 A.2d 94 (allocatur granted April 9,1979).
Order affirmed.
Order
And Now, this 13th day of September, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated November 1, 1977, denying benefits to George D. Bechtel is affirmed.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
405 A.2d 1074 (Bechtel v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.