Zabka Unemployment Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Zabka Unemployment Compensation Case

162 A.2d 88, 192 Pa. Super. 511, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 498

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 15, 1960

DocketAppeal, No. 81

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 162 A.2d 88 (Zabka 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

Zabka Unemployment Compensation Case, 162 A.2d 88, 192 Pa. Super. 511, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 498 (Pa. Ct. App. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

The appellant was employed by Rhea’s Bakery as a cleaning woman. She advised her employer that she could not perform her duties because the detergents that she used were causing a skin irritation. The record clearly reveals that the employer then offered her other work (assisting the bakers) during the night shift, which work did not require the use of detergents. She refused this work because her husband objected to her working at night. Her present contention is that no other job was offered to her.

Irene McDonough, the employer representative, testified that the appellant was offered a job working with the bakers and “she said her husband would not allow her and she refused the job.” The appellant herself finally admitted that the job had been offered to her but she thought that Irene McDonough was not “in a position to hire me”.

The bureau concluded that the appellant voluntarily terminated her employment without a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and that the appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of §402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(b). The referee, after hearing testimony of the appellant only, the employer not having appeared, reversed the decision of the bureau. The Board of Review reversed the referee and disqualified the appellant from receiving benefits.

There was sufficient competent testimony to support the findings of the board.

Decision affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Ervin, J.,

The appellant was employed by Rhea’s Bakery as a cleaning woman. She advised her employer that she could not perform her duties because the detergents that she used were causing a skin irritation. The record clearly reveals that the employer then offered her other work (assisting the bakers) during the night shift, which work did not require the use of detergents. She refused this work because her husband objected to her working at night. Her present contention is that no other job was offered to her.

Irene McDonough, the employer representative, testified that the appellant was offered a job working with the bakers and “she said her husband would not allow her and she refused the job.” The appellant herself finally admitted that the job had been offered to her but she thought that Irene McDonough was not “in a position to hire me”.

The bureau concluded that the appellant voluntarily terminated her employment without a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and that the appellant was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of §402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802(b). The referee, after hearing testimony of the appellant only, the employer not having appeared, reversed the decision of the bureau. The Board of Review reversed the referee and disqualified the appellant from receiving benefits.

There was sufficient competent testimony to support the findings of the board.

Decision affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.2d 88, 192 Pa. Super. 511, 1960 Pa. Super. LEXIS 498, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zabka-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack