From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blystone v. U.C.B.R

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 29, 1975
17 Pa. Commw. 180 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1975)

Summary

affirming the Board's order upholding a referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits where the claimant left work early without first notifying his employer and, therefore, engaged in willful misconduct

Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

Opinion

January 29, 1975.

Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Leaving work without permission — Warning.

1. An employe discharged for wilful misconduct connected with his work is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [181]

2. One discharged for leaving work early without advising his employer and without an excuse for such action, may be found guilty of wilful misconduct so that he is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, and an advance warning is not a prerequisite to justify the discharge of such employe for wilful misconduct. [182-3]

Submitted on briefs January 9, 1975, to Judges KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR. and MENCER, sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 419 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Joseph A. Blystone, No. B-119806-B.

Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Robert R. Weppelman, with him Kradel, Weppelman and Himler, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.


In this unemployment compensation case, claimant-appellant was declared to be ineligible to receive benefits by the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The basis for declaring him ineligible was the provision of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e), which provides, in pertinent part:

"An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week —

"(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected with his work. . . ."

We must affirm.

The undisputed facts are that on August 20, 1973, claimant-appellant left the premises of his employer an hour and a half early without obtaining permission or telling anybody. He was an hourly employee and did "punch the time clock," thus establishing that he was not attempting to hide the fact that he had left early and establishing that he did not intend to cheat the employer to the extent that he would be paid for his absence. Another employee left with him. The next morning when they reported for work, both men were discharged.

While claimant-appellant argues that there was no stated policy of the employer that an employee could not leave early, it is clear from the evidence that he had worked for this employer for approximately two years and had never left early before. Claimant-appellant asserted that others had left early and had not been discharged, but he did not dispute the employer's testimony which was "any time that anybody ever punched out early and went home, they always told somebody in management." Indeed, when asked for an explanation of why he did this, claimant-appellant said that he had finished the job he was doing and there was no work for him to do during the time others were gathering parts he was to use on his next job. He testified he left because the other man left. When pressed for a reason or excuse for not telling the manager that he was leaving early, he replied: "Because I didn't feel like it. We have been on the outs ever since he took over the general manager." Claimant-appellant notably did not say that he considered it unnecessary. The referee, in his discussion, included a paragraph entitled "Reasoning" which stated: "An essential element of misconduct in connection with the claimant's work is a breach of duty to the employer. In any employment relationship, there are certain standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, even though they may not be expressly set forth in the written or verbal contract. The claimant's action was a breach of duty owed to his employer and was an act so inimical to the employer's best interests that discharge was a natural result. Accordingly, the claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of Section 402(e) of the Law."

Judge Mencer's able review of the law on this subject, in his opinion in Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commw. 526, 529, 300 A.2d 299, 301 (1973), makes it unnecessary for us to repeat it here. In addition to covering the law generally, that opinion expressly disposes of the only tangible legal argument upon which claimant-appellant bases his appeal — lack of warning: ". . . However, an advance warning is not a prerequisite to justify a discharge for willful misconduct. Hohnstock Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 500, 175 A.2d 167 (1961)."

Accordingly, we enter the following

ORDER

NOW, January 29, 1975, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated February 28, 1974, in the above matter, denying benefits, is affirmed.


Summaries of

Blystone v. U.C.B.R

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jan 29, 1975
17 Pa. Commw. 180 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1975)

affirming the Board's order upholding a referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits where the claimant left work early without first notifying his employer and, therefore, engaged in willful misconduct

Summary of this case from Jefferson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

In Blystone v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commw. 180, 342 A.2d 772 (1975), this Court, quoting the referee's decision in that case, wrote, " '[i]n any employment relationship, there are certain standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, even though they may not be expressly set forth in the written or verbal contract.' "

Summary of this case from Phila. Geriatric Cen. v. Un. Comp. B

In Blystone, we stated: "[A]n essential element of misconduct in connection with the claimant's work is a breach of duty to the employer.

Summary of this case from Lynch v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review
Case details for

Blystone v. U.C.B.R

Case Details

Full title:Joseph A. Blystone, Appellant, v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jan 29, 1975

Citations

17 Pa. Commw. 180 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1975)
342 A.2d 772

Citing Cases

Thompson v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Obviously, leaving work early without notice is a form of absenteeism which may rise to the level of willful…

Phila. Geriatric Cen. v. Un. Comp. B

Hartley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw. 371, 397 A.2d 477 (1979). In Blystone v.…