Miokovic Unemployment Compensation Case

171 A.2d 799, 195 Pa. Super. 203, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 611
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedJune 15, 1961
DocketAppeal, No. 28
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 171 A.2d 799 (Miokovic 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
Miokovic Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 A.2d 799, 195 Pa. Super. 203, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 611 (Pa. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to claimant under §402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(e), which provides: “An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week— ... (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work . . . .” Both the bureau and the referee had rendered similar decisions.

Claimant was last employed as a sprayer by the Phoenix Glass Company, Monaca, Pennsylvania. She did not report to work on June 11, 1960, advising her employer that the reason for her absence was because she had to care for her grandchildren. The actual reason for her absence was because of difficulties with her husband. During the prior six months she was absent from work on the average of at least one day a week. On June 14, 1960 she was discharged for having falsi[205]*205fied the reason for her absence on June 11, 1960. She admitted that she did not tell the truth to her employer as to the reason for her absence on June 11, 1960.

The record clearly reveals that claimant, who was having difficulties with her husband and had been frequently absent from work for this reason, told a deliberate falsehood to her employer concerning the reason for her absence on June 11, 1960. This ivas willful misconduct and disqualified her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

Decision affirmed.

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

Related

Vital Support Home Health Care Agency, Inc. v. UCBR
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2017
Melomed v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
972 A.2d 593 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)
Simonds v. Commonwealth
535 A.2d 742 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1988)
Smith v. UNEMPL. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW
49 Pa. Commw. 394 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Smith v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
411 A.2d 280 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Suchter v. Commonwealth
405 A.2d 1075 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Glasser v. UNEMPL. COMP. BD. OF REVIEW.
404 A.2d 768 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Zelonis v. Commonwealth
395 A.2d 712 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Blessings v. Commonwealth
383 A.2d 580 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Mileski v. Commonwealth
379 A.2d 643 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
171 A.2d 799, 195 Pa. Super. 203, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miokovic-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1961.