Appeal, No. 245, Oct. T., 1955, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated April 27, 1955, No. B-39300, in re claim of Charles H. Curran. Decision affirmed.
Morton Craine, with him Herman Toll, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ.
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 578]
This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to claimant under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 PS § 802(e), which provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week - (e) In which his employment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work; ...."
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 579]
Claimant, a press operator with the Heintz Manufacturing Company, Philadelphia, was discharged on December 28, 1954 for wilful misconduct. Thereafter, an application for unemployment benefits was disallowed by the bureau based upon findings of fact that the dismissal was due to wilful misconduct arising from excessive absenteeism without notice. Claimant had been employed by the Heintz Company for approximately 7 1/2 years previous to his dismissal.
The referee and the board affirmed the decision following which an appeal was filed to this court. An examination of the record discloses that Charles H. Curran, claimant, was absent from work without notice twice during the month of September 1954. In October he was absent five times, after which he received a written notice warning that future absence without notice would result in dismissal. In November he was again absent without notice. On December 28, after another absence without notice, he was discharged.
When the claim petition was first initiated, claimant alleged that he lost time only when he was told that there was no work. In the petition for appeal to the referee, however, he averred that his dismissal was the result of an argument with the shop steward and not for absenteeism and involved only two days lost without notice. He now contends that his discharge was the result of his activity on behalf of the union two years previous to the dismissal. Claimant further denies that he received a warning notice concerning his excessive absences and that future absences would result in dismissal. The foreman of the company contradicted claimant's contention and testified that the original letter of notice was sent to his union in accordance with established procedure and he was given a copy. It was emphatically denied that an employee
[ 181 Pa. Super. Page 580]
was classified as absent on days when ...