Legal Opinion · Dissent

Unclaimed Freight Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 6, 1996Published

1DissentFriedman, Judge

I must respectfully dissent. Unlike the majority, I do not believe that Pennsylvania law requires Philip E. Kehr (Claimant), prior to quitting, to re-notify Unclaimed Freight Company (Employer) about Ronald J. Kett-ner’s verbal abuse and profanity over an eight year period. Indeed, I believe that Claimant’s many complaints about Kettner’s verbal abuse and profanity over the course of that time, made both to Kettner, the owner of the company, and to Emil Nettke, Employer’s general manager, afforded Employer numerous opportunities to correct the problem and thereby preserve Claimant’s…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Danner v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Homan v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1987
  3. Tedesco Manufacturing Co. v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API