Kadysewski v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Kadysewski v. Commonwealth

410 A.2d 102, 48 Pa. Commw. 629, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1089

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania·Decided January 22, 1980·No. Appeal, No. 2134 C.D. 1978·Published

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Anthony J. Kadysewski (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board [630] of Review (Board) which denied him benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b)(l), for voluntarily terminating his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. He is a transportation planner/engineer, and he argues that he was forced to resign because his employer required him to perform administrative and clerical jobs which were not within his agreed-upon job description. There is substantial evidence, however, to support the finding of the Board that “the claimant’s actual duties substantially conformed to those which had been agreed upon.” We will therefore affirm the order of the Board. See, e.g,, Shriner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 368, 400 A.2d 934 (1979).

Order

And Now, this 22nd day of January, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.

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

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Anthony J. Kadysewski (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board [630] of Review (Board) which denied him benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b)(l), for voluntarily terminating his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. He is a transportation planner/engineer, and he argues that he was forced to resign because his employer required him to perform administrative and clerical jobs which were not within his agreed-upon job description. There is substantial evidence, however, to support the finding of the Board that “the claimant’s actual duties substantially conformed to those which had been agreed upon.” We will therefore affirm the order of the Board. See, e.g,, Shriner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 368, 400 A.2d 934 (1979).

Order

And Now, this 22nd day of January, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.

This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.

Kadysewski v. Commonwealth, 410 A.2d 102, 48 Pa. Commw. 629, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1089 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

410 A.2d 102 (Kadysewski v. Commonwealth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related