Opinion
September 30, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Violation of rules — Prior tolerance.
1. An employe discharged for violation of known rules of his employer is properly found to have been discharged for wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, and the fact that the employer had tolerated violations in the past will not alter that determination when compliance was requested through repeated warnings. [100]
Submitted on briefs, May 6, 1981, to President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges BLATT and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2356 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Janet S. Love, No. B-176894.
Application with the Office 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.
Alton P. Arnold, Jr., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Richard A. Chesnik, for intervenor.
The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's denial of benefits to Janet S. Love, finding willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
Love, a security guard, on June 7, 1979, was discharged for violation of employer rules prohibiting the setting aside of store merchandise for purchase in other than authorized store areas.
Although conflicting testimony was heard, the referee found, within his province, Thomas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commw. 630, 410 A.2d 101 (1980), that there were company rules of which Love was not only aware, but as a security guard was under a duty to enforce; and that she violated the rules despite repeated warnings.
In the alternative, Love contends that she was not guilty of willful misconduct since the rule had not been strictly enforced. She asserts that this erratic enforcement gave her good cause for her non-compliance. We disagree.
It is not unreasonable to expect employees to comply with employer rules, especially when compliance is requested by repeated warnings. Prior tolerance does not justify repeated violations. Bullock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commw. 528, 402 A.2d 734 (1979).
Our scope of review is limited to whether the Board's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Remaly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commw. 555, 423 A.2d 814 (1980). We find that they are.
The record and law support a finding of willful misconduct. Affirmed.
Date: September 30, 1981.
ORDER
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order, No. B-176894, dated October 22, 1979, is affirmed.