Czarnecki Unemployment Compensation Case

137 A.2d 844, 185 Pa. Super. 46, 1958 Pa. Super. LEXIS 735
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJanuary 21, 1958
DocketAppeal, No. 63
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 137 A.2d 844 (Czarnecki Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Czarnecki Unemployment Compensation Case, 137 A.2d 844, 185 Pa. Super. 46, 1958 Pa. Super. LEXIS 735 (Pa. Ct. App. 1958).

Opinion

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was denied benefits under section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS §802 (b), and has appealed.1

[48]*48Claimant was married on July 23, 1955, and thereby terminated her employment with her employer, the Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, because the union-company collective bargaining agreement, negotiated by the union with which she was affiliated, provided: “No married women will be hired, and no single women who subsequently marry shall be retained beyond a period of thirty (30) days from the date of marriage.” Claimant was clearly disqualified. Means Unemployment Compensation Case, 177 Pa. Superior Ct. 410, 110 A. 2d 886; Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 542, 119 A. 2d 650, allocatur refused 180 Pa. Superior Ct. xxx.

It is argued on behalf of claimant that this provision in the collective bargaining agreement is illegal under section 701 of the Law, 43 PS §861. The section provides in part: “No agreement by an employe to waive, release, or commute his rights to compensation, or any other rights under this act, shall be valid.” It is obvious that the section proscribes agreements to relinquish rights or benefits which the employe otherwise would be entitled to under the Law. It has no application to legitimate conditions of the employment, such as the instant provision in the collective bargaining agreement, which the employer and the employe (individually or through a collective bargaining agent) agree shall govern the employment status. The collective bargaining agreement was binding on claimant. When she married she thereby terminated her employment and voluntarily elected to place herself in an unemployed status for a reason which the Law does not recognize as necessitous and compelling. Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case, supra, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 542, 545, 119 A. 2d 650.

[49]*49Questions not covered in the statement of questions involved will not be considered on this appeal. Blue Anchor Overall Co. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, 385 Pa. 394, 402, 123 A. 2d 413.

The decision is affirmed.

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

Related

Kamensky v. Roemer Industries Inc.
1 Pa. D. & C.4th 497 (Mercer County Court of Common Pleas, 1988)
Gilbert v. Everett
647 S.W.2d 486 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1983)
Brown v. Southern Airways, Inc.
170 So. 2d 245 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1964)
Smith Unemployment Compensation Case
187 Pa. Super. 560 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.2d 844, 185 Pa. Super. 46, 1958 Pa. Super. LEXIS 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/czarnecki-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1958.