Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case

178 A.2d 786, 197 Pa. Super. 372, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 834
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 21, 1962
DocketAppeals, 12, 13, and 14
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 178 A.2d 786 (Roccograndi 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
Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 A.2d 786, 197 Pa. Super. 372, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 834 (Pa. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The appellants are all members of a family who are involved in the wrecking business together. Each owns' 40 shares of stock in the company which has 205 outstanding shares, and all three are officers of the company. The officers of the company, during periods of insufficient work to employ all the members of the family, hold a meeting and by majority vote decide which members shall be “laid off”. It was decided by majority vote of all the stockholders that the appellants would be “laid off” because it was their respective turns. Immediately thereafter claims for unemployment compensation benefits were filed by the three appellants. The Bureau of Employment Security de-' nied the claims on the grounds that the appellants were self-employed. Upon appeal the referee reversed the bureau and held the appellants to be entitled to benefits. The Board of Review reversed the referee’s decision, holding that the appellants had sufficient control to lay themselves off and that they did just that. Therefore the appellants were self-employed and must be denied eligibility for benefits under section 402(h) and section 402(b) (1) of the law.

This case is ruled by DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 612, 177 A. 2d 20, in which this Court held that the corporate entity may be ignored in determining whether the claimants, in fact, were “unemployed” under the act, or were self-employed persons whose business merely proved to be unremunerative during the period for which the claim for benefits was made.

Decisions affirmed.

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

Related

Lowman, D. v. UCBR, Aplt.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2020
Starr v. Commonwealth
309 A.2d 837 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Gilbert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
299 A.2d 695 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1973)
Wedner Unemployment Compensation Case
296 A.2d 792 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Starinieri Unemployment Compensation Case
289 A.2d 726 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
My Brother's Place, Inc. v. Bureau of Employment Security
47 Pa. D. & C.2d 587 (Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas, 1969)
Salis Unemployment Compensation Case
190 A.2d 579 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Lazar v. BD. OF REVIEW, DIV. OF EMPLOY. SEC'Y
186 A.2d 121 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1962)
DiGregorio Unemployment Compensation Case
179 A.2d 665 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 A.2d 786, 197 Pa. Super. 372, 1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 834, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roccograndi-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1962.