Opinion
November 13, 1962.
December 12, 1962.
Unemployment Compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Failure of employe to report for long period after reported absence.
In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, who had a record of chronic absenteeism, did not report for work on a particular day because he had accidentally injured himself and so informed his employer, and that the employer never heard from claimant again until more than two months later, at which time he was informed that no work was available for him, it was Held that the evidence sustained the findings of the board that claimant voluntarily left his employment in violation of § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (WOODSIDE, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 24, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-66691, in re claim of Emil R. Kiefer. Decision affirmed.
Sanford A. Middleman, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 13, 1962.
In this unemployment compensation case the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review all concluded that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits in that he voluntarily left his employment in violation of § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
The claimant, Emil R. Kiefer, was last employed by Penn Window Co., Pittsburgh, Pa., on December 23, 1960. He had a record of absenteeism, having lost 103 work days in 1960. On December 27, 1960 he did not report for work because he had broken his ribs in an accident on December 25, 1960. He sent word to his employer at that time giving the reason for his absence. The employer never heard from him again until March 1, 1961, at which time he was informed that no work was available for him. He had been removed from the work rolls as a voluntary quit. It might be noted that his union representation under grievance procedure upheld the employer in removing his name from the work rolls.
The Board found that he voluntarily left his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The findings are supported by competent evidence and are binding on this Court. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Super. 400, 116 A.2d 271 (1955). The actions of this employee indicated no regard for the employer's best interest. He made no effort to maintain the employment relationship. The compensation authorities might well have found him not to be eligible for benefits under § 402(e), 43 P. S. § 802(e), in that his chronic absenteeism amounted to willful misconduct. Hohnstock Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 500, 175 A.2d 167 (1961).
Decision affirmed.