DeLuca Unemployment Compensation Case

182 A.2d 279, 198 Pa. Super. 120, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 659
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided June 13, 1962·No. Appeal, No. 53·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

In this unemployment compensation case the bureau, the referee and the board all concluded that the appellant had terminated his employment without a necessitous and compelling reason and that he was disqualified from receiving benefits under §402(b) (1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802 (b).

Appellant was last employed as a truck driver for Woody’s Poultry, Bridgeville, Pennsylvania, at a wage of $65.00 per week, having been thus employed for one year and nine months. The board found on adequate evidence that he had vountarily terminated his employment because he felt the pay was inadequate and £he working hours too long.

[121] Mere dissatisfaction with the wages and working assignments does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for terminating one’s employment. This case is ruled by Barittisky Unemployment Compensation Case, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 473, 151 A. 2d 874.

Decision affirmed.

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

DeLuca Unemployment Compensation Case, 182 A.2d 279, 198 Pa. Super. 120, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 659 (Pa. Ct. App. 1962).

182 A.2d 279 (DeLuca Unemployment Compensation Case) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Owen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
363 A.2d 852 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1976)
Daniels v. Commonwealth
336 A.2d 662 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
James v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
296 A.2d 288 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Hambridge Steel Erectors, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
235 A.2d 432 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1967)