Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Livezey v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 30, 1982No. Appeal, No. 3085 C.D. 1980Published

1Concurrence

Concurring Opinion by

Judge Biatt :

I cannot join in this opinion because I believe that, in granting the claimant benefits due to the change in hours, the majority is disregarding previous case law.

The record does not include the actual contract of hire. The testimony indicates, however, that .the parties had an oral understanding that the claimant would not be required to work certain days. Later, the employer ordered all employees to observe a nine to five workday.

Mere discontent with wages, hours, and working conditions is not usually adequate cause for terminating one’s employment.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stalc v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  2. Tucker v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1974
  3. West v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Martelli v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1981

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API