Opinion
Argued October 9, 1980
November 13, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Absenteeism — Tardiness — Substantial evidence.
1. An employe is properly found to have been discharged for wilful misconduct and to be ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, when substantial evidence establishes that the employe was discharged for continued absenteeism and tardiness despite warnings as to the consequences of such conduct. [509]
Argued October 9, 1980, before Judges MENCER, BLATT and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1718 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Henry Allen, No. B-173843.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Michelle R. Terry, for petitioner.
Steven R. Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
In this unemployment compensation appeal, claimant questions a denial of benefits by the board, affirming the referee's conclusion that claimant was ineligible for compensation because discharged for willful misconduct.
Henry Allen.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
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).
Having worked as a packer for his employer only six months, claimant missed a total of 27 days and was late for work on two days. On February 5, 1979, he received a two-day suspension for tardiness, and was warned that any continued record of absenteeism would lead to discharge. Claimant then took off three days — April 4, 6 and 9 — for personal business, which the employer classified as unexcused absences. When claimant failed to call in or report for work on April 16 as requested by the employer, he was discharged for excessive absenteeism and tardiness after warning.
Slim Jim.
Claimant contends that the employer failed to meet the burden of proving willful misconduct, and that the alleged actions did not warrant a finding of willful misconduct as a matter of law.
There is substantial evidence in the record of testimony to support the findings, made by the referee and adopted by the board, that claimant missed work several times after receiving a warning from his employer that continued absenteeism would be cause for dismissal. Therefore, we cannot disturb those findings. Edwards v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commw. 556, 414 A.2d 1124 (1980).
We have held that continued excessive absence or lateness in the face of warnings by the employer constitutes willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(e). Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 629, 411 A.2d 899 (1980); Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commw. 526, 300 A.2d 299 (1973). Claimant's behavior here evidences a willful disregard of the employer's interests and of his own duties and obligations.
Accordingly, we affirm the denial of compensation.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-173843, dated July 11, 1979, is affirmed.