Opinion
Argued September 11, 1973
October 17, 1973.
Unemployment compensation — Willful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P. L. (1937) 289 — Violation of employer rule.
1. An employe discharged for willful misconduct connected with his work is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P. L. (1937) 2897. [288]
2. Deliberate violation of rules of the employer can constitute willful misconduct of an employe rendering him ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [288]
Argued September 11, 1973, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 856 C.D. 1972, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Thomas DiAmico, No. B-113607.
Application with 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.
David Freeman, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying Claimant-Appellant benefits.
Appellant was employed by Henkel McCoy, Inc., as a ditch digger and truck driver for six years. On Saturday, October 30, 1971, Appellant injured his back in an accident at his home, and did not report to work until the following Wednesday, which was November 3, 1971, when he was discharged for failing to report his inability to work. This was a violation of an established house rule.
Appellant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and it was denied in turn by the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Board.
Appellant now brings the Board on appeal to this Court.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802 (e), provides, in part, that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week: "(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work. . . ."
Although "willful misconduct" was not defined by the Legislature it has been previously and consistently determined that deliberate violation of employer's rules meets the meaning of that phrase. Harmer Unemployment Compensation Case, 206 Pa. Super. 270, 213 A.2d 221 (1965); Curran Unemployment Compensation Case, 181 Pa. Super. 578, 124 A.2d 404 (1956).
In the case at hand, Appellant admits he was aware of his employer's rule which required all employees to notify it when each was unable to report for work. Appellant argues, however, that his injury (back), prevented him from leaving his bed to telephone his employer, and that his wife did not give the employer the required notice because she ". . . doesn't like to call."
Under the facts as we have reviewed them, the determination of the Board is supported by the evidence and Appellant's arguments contra are without merit.
Accordingly,
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 1973, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 3, 1972, is affirmed.