Allen v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Allen v. Commonwealth

422 A.2d 234, 54 Pa. Commw. 507, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1824

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 13, 1980

DocketAppeal, No. 1718 C.D. 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 422 A.2d 234 (Allen v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Allen v. Commonwealth, 422 A.2d 234, 54 Pa. Commw. 507, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1824 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

In this unemployment compensation appeal, claimant¹ questions a denial of benefits by the board,² affirming the referee’s conclusion that claimant was ineligible for compensation because discharged for willful misconduct.³

Having worked as a packer for his employer⁴ 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.

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.

[509]*509There 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. Commonwealth Ct. 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. Commonwealth Ct. 629, 411 A.2d 899 (1980); Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 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.

Okder

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Craig,

In this unemployment compensation appeal, claimant¹ questions a denial of benefits by the board,² affirming the referee’s conclusion that claimant was ineligible for compensation because discharged for willful misconduct.³

Having worked as a packer for his employer⁴ 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.

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.

[509]*509There 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. Commonwealth Ct. 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. Commonwealth Ct. 629, 411 A.2d 899 (1980); Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 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.

Okder

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 A.2d 234, 54 Pa. Commw. 507, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/allen-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack