Tronzo v. Com., Unemployment Comp. Bd.

3 Citing cases

  1. Allegheny Valley Sch. v. Unemp. Comp

    697 A.2d 243 (Pa. 1997)   Cited 18 times
    In Allegheny Valley School, the claimant was demoted from an assistant manager position and was offered employment either as a manager's aide or as a developmental care specialist, both of which included significant salary reductions.

    The fault concept articulated in Section 3 concerns that arising in the employer/employee relationship. See Tronzo v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 514 Pa. 24, 30, 522 A.2d 544, 547 (1987). Moreover, this Court has stated in its examination of Section 3 of the Act that:

  2. Butz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

    No. 681 C.D. 2014 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Jan. 16, 2015)

    '"The appellate court's duty is to examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the [UCBR] has found, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony, to see if substantial evidence for the [UCBR]'s conclusion exists."' Tronzo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 522 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. 1987) (citations omitted).

  3. Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Commonwealth

    123 Pa. Commw. 418 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1989)   Cited 2 times

    An appellate court can supply its own reasoning to support a conclusion. Tronzo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 24, 522 A.2d 544 (1987). The authorization for store #41 was suspended for one year, on the basis that the store failed to cooperate with the WIC training program.