Sanesi v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Sanesi v. Commonwealth

425 A.2d 65, 56 Pa. Commw. 516, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1131

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedFebruary 9, 1981

DocketAppeal, No. 904 C.D. 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 425 A.2d 65 (Sanesi 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

Sanesi v. Commonwealth, 425 A.2d 65, 56 Pa. Commw. 516, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1131 (Pa. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

Debra P. Sanesi (claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied benefits for willful [517]*517misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.¹ We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a manager for Fox Chapel Travel Service (employer) for a period of nine and one-half months. The Board determined that claimant was discharged, after numerous warnings, for habitual tardiness in arriving at work and returning from her lunch break.

It is well settled that habitual tardiness, particularly after warnings, is sufficient to sustain a finding of willful misconduct, disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment compensation. Spence v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 204, 409 A.2d 500 (1979). Claimant, however, argues that the Board’s finding is clearly erroneous, based on the working hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. provided in her employment contract. The employer refutes this argument by contending that (1) claimant agreed, after several months, to a starting time of 8:45 a.m. and (2) claimant was frequently late, even when the starting time was 9 a.m.

It is the province of the Board to resolve conflicts in testimony and assess the credibility of witnesses. Crilly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 221, 397 A.2d 40 (1979). The Board here, in proper exercise of its power, chose to believe the testimony of the employer, while rejecting that of claimant.

Accordingly, we enter the following

Order

And Now, this 9th day of February, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated March 23, 1979, denying benefits to Debra P. Sanesi, is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Mencer,

Debra P. Sanesi (claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied benefits for willful [517]*517misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.¹ We affirm.

Claimant was employed as a manager for Fox Chapel Travel Service (employer) for a period of nine and one-half months. The Board determined that claimant was discharged, after numerous warnings, for habitual tardiness in arriving at work and returning from her lunch break.

It is well settled that habitual tardiness, particularly after warnings, is sufficient to sustain a finding of willful misconduct, disqualifying an employee from receiving unemployment compensation. Spence v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 204, 409 A.2d 500 (1979). Claimant, however, argues that the Board’s finding is clearly erroneous, based on the working hours of 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. provided in her employment contract. The employer refutes this argument by contending that (1) claimant agreed, after several months, to a starting time of 8:45 a.m. and (2) claimant was frequently late, even when the starting time was 9 a.m.

It is the province of the Board to resolve conflicts in testimony and assess the credibility of witnesses. Crilly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 221, 397 A.2d 40 (1979). The Board here, in proper exercise of its power, chose to believe the testimony of the employer, while rejecting that of claimant.

Accordingly, we enter the following

Order

And Now, this 9th day of February, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated March 23, 1979, denying benefits to Debra P. Sanesi, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

425 A.2d 65, 56 Pa. Commw. 516, 1981 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanesi-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack