# Morrison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · March 12, 1940 · 141 Pa. Super. 256

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3855081

## Case

- **Full name:** Morrison, Appellant, v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 12, 1940
- **Citations:** 141 Pa. Super. 256; 15 A.2d 391; 1940 Pa. Super. LEXIS 292
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Baldrige, Cunningham, Hirt, Keller, Parker, Rhodes
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3855081

## Opinion text

Per Curiam,
On the merits, this appeal is governed in principle by our very recent decision in
Thurston v.
Unemploy
*258
ment Compensation Board of Review,
140 Pa. Superior Ct. 254 , 13 A. 2d 890 .
On the question of procedure, we are of opinion that the provision in the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act of December 5, 1936, P. L. of 1937, p. 2897), that the board shall hear appeals by employees engaged in the administration of the act from dismissal, suspension or furlough and render a final decision in not more than
thirty days
after the date of such appeals, (sec. 208 (p) ), is directory and not mandatory, and that the action of the board in not entering its final decision on the appeal
taken
October 5, 1939, and
heard
on October 24, 1939, until November 15, 1939 did not require the reinstatement of the employee to the position from which he had been rightfully dismissed:
Pearlman v. Newburger,
117 Pa. Superior Ct. 328, 337-8 , 178 A. 402 ;
Com. ex rel. Fortney v. Wozney,
326 Pa. 494, 497 , 192 A. 648 ;
Coolbaugh v. Herman,
221 Pa. 496 , 70 A. 830 ;
Swick v. School Dist. of Tarentum,
141 Pa. Superior Ct. 246 , 14 A. 2d 898 . It will be noted that the decision of the board was rendered within thirty days after the
hearing
on the appeal.
Statutes directing deliberative bodies to make a decision involving judgment or discretion within a certain time bear no likeness to provisions directing appeals to be taken by a litigant within a fixed period; and except in very unusual instances they will be held to be directory only. Certainly there is nothing in the Act which would warrant a construction that a delay of ten days in entering the decision of the board requires a
reversal
of the order appealed from.
The decision is affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3855081. Public record. Not legal advice.