Love v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

434 A.2d 1336, 62 Pa. Commw. 99, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1806
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedSeptember 30, 1981
DocketAppeal, No. 2356 C.D. 1979
StatusPublished

This text of 434 A.2d 1336 (Love v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review) 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
Love v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 1336, 62 Pa. Commw. 99, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1806 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Opinion

Opinion by

President Judge Crumlish,

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.1 We affirm.

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. Commonwealth Ct. 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. Commonwealth Ct. 528, 402 A.2d 734 (1979).

[101]*101Our 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. Commonwealth Ct. 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.

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

Related

Bullock v. Commonwealth
402 A.2d 734 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
Thomas v. Commonwealth
410 A.2d 101 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Remaly v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
423 A.2d 814 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)
Christian School Ass'n v. Commonwealth, Department of Labor & Industry
423 A.2d 1340 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
434 A.2d 1336, 62 Pa. Commw. 99, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1806, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/love-v-commonwealth-unemployment-compensation-board-of-review-pacommwct-1981.