Carriers Terminal Co. v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Carriers Terminal Co. v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

449 A.2d 873, 68 Pa. Commw. 586, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1532

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedSeptember 7, 1982

DocketAppeal, No. 2276 C.D. 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 449 A.2d 873 (Carriers Terminal Co. v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Carriers Terminal Co. v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 449 A.2d 873, 68 Pa. Commw. 586, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1532 (Pa. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Barbara A. Miller (Claimant) was awarded unemployment compensation benefits because the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversed the decision of a referee who had found Claimant ineligible pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law¹ because she voluntarily resigned her position with her employer. Claimant’s employer, Carriers Terminal Company, has appealed the determination of the Board.

The findings of the Board will be affirmed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence which is defined as evidence, and inferences reasonably deductible therefrom, which would permit a reasonable mind to have reached the same conclusion as that reached by the Board. Zinicola v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 154, [588]*588407 A.2d 474 (1979). Upon a thorough, review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Claimant’s termination was involuntary. For example, the record reveals that Claimant received a letter from her employer’s assistant terminal manager who was the Claimant’s supervisor which notified her that she was being laid off as a result of poor business conditions. The employer alleges that the Board did not accept testimony which would have established that Claimant’s separation was voluntary. The Board, as the ultimate fact finder, however, is the sole arbiter on the issue of credibility and evidentiary weight, so that even uneontradicted testimony may be disregarded. Atkinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth C.t. 535, 434 A.2d 850 (1981).

Order affirmed.

Order,

Now, September 7,1982, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 20, 1981 at Decision No. B-198567 is hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Doyle,

Barbara A. Miller (Claimant) was awarded unemployment compensation benefits because the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversed the decision of a referee who had found Claimant ineligible pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law¹ because she voluntarily resigned her position with her employer. Claimant’s employer, Carriers Terminal Company, has appealed the determination of the Board.

The findings of the Board will be affirmed on appeal when supported by substantial evidence which is defined as evidence, and inferences reasonably deductible therefrom, which would permit a reasonable mind to have reached the same conclusion as that reached by the Board. Zinicola v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 154, [588]*588407 A.2d 474 (1979). Upon a thorough, review of the record, we find substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Claimant’s termination was involuntary. For example, the record reveals that Claimant received a letter from her employer’s assistant terminal manager who was the Claimant’s supervisor which notified her that she was being laid off as a result of poor business conditions. The employer alleges that the Board did not accept testimony which would have established that Claimant’s separation was voluntary. The Board, as the ultimate fact finder, however, is the sole arbiter on the issue of credibility and evidentiary weight, so that even uneontradicted testimony may be disregarded. Atkinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth C.t. 535, 434 A.2d 850 (1981).

Order affirmed.

Order,

Now, September 7,1982, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 20, 1981 at Decision No. B-198567 is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 A.2d 873, 68 Pa. Commw. 586, 1982 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1532, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carriers-terminal-co-v-commonwealth-unemployment-compensation-board-of-pacommwct-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack