Opinion
August 10, 1983.
Unemployment compensation — Tardiness — Wilful misconduct — Conflicting evidence — Due process.
1. An employe may properly be found to be guilty of wilful misconduct precluding her receipt of unemployment compensation benefits when discharged as a result of such behavior when substantial evidence supported findings that she was tardy sixty-six times and was warned of the consequences of such conduct, although evidence to the contrary was also received. [266]
2. Due process is not denied an unemployment compensation claimant who was provided proper notice and a fair hearing merely because her counsel was unsuccessful in serving a subpoena one-half hour before the hearing. [266]
Submitted on briefs June 8, 1983, before Judges WILLIAMS, JR., CRAIG and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 297 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Appeal Board in case of In re: Claim of Janet H. Conibear, No. B-180356-B.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed. Referee reversed. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Appeal dismissed. Petitioner filed petition for reinstatement and remand. Petition granted. Prior order affirmed by board. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Barbara J. Hart, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Claimant Janet Conibear appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the referee's denial of unemployment benefits on the ground that the claimant's employer, the Reading Hospital and Medical Center, had discharged her for willful misconduct — absenteeism and excessive tardiness.
Until her discharge on October 19, 1979, the claimant had been the chief nuclear medical technician, a position which included the supervision of a staff of medical technicians.
The board found that the claimant had a history of tardiness on 66 occasions between April and October of 1979. The board also found that the personnel director had informed the claimant in March, 1979, that other hospital employees were complaining about her lateness and absenteeism.
The chief issue is the existence of substantial evidence to support the finding of excessive tardiness.
Mr. Seabourne, the hospital personnel director, testified that the claimant's tardiness and absenteeism had caused morale problems in her department and that he had warned her about those problems in March of 1979. He also listed, from department records, the dates on which the claimant had been late for work.
Because the resolution of any evidentiary conflicts is for the board, and because the record does contain substantial evidence to support each of the board's findings, those findings control this decision.
We have consistently held that chronic tardiness, particularly after a warning, exhibits a sufficient disregard of the employer's interests to constitute willful misconduct.
Capricious disregard of evidence, also argued by the claimant, is not an applicable standard here. American Process Lettering, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commw. 272, 412 A.2d 1123 (1980); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Glenn, 23 Pa. Commw. 240, 350 A.2d 890 (1976); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Schmid, 20 Pa. Commw. 286, 341 A.2d 553 (1975). Because chronic tardiness alone supports the determination of willful misconduct, we need not address the issue of the claimant's absences.
With regard to the claimant's additional contention, that the board denied her due process, we note that the board gave the claimant proper notice and a full hearing. The fact that the claimant's attorney was unsuccessful in serving a subpoena one-half hour before the beginning of the hearing did not result in any denial of due process.
Accordingly, we affirm.
ORDER
NOW, August 10, 1983, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-180356-B, dated January 8, 1982, is affirmed.