Appeal, No. 208, April T., 1958, by employer, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-5-G-994, in re claim of Charles F. Weimer. Decision affirmed.
Ira B. Coldren, Jr., with him Herman M. Buck, and Ray, Coldren & Buck, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (wright and Woodside, JJ., absent).
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 186]
This is an appeal by Atlantic Freight Lines, Inc., from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granting benefits to a former employe, Charles F. Weimer. Atlantic contends that claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402 (e) of the Law, 43 PS § 802 (e), which provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week - ... (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is 'employment' as defined in this act; ..."
Claimant was last employed by Laughery Auto Wreckers, Hopwood, Pennsylvania, his last day of work being November 23, 1957. He had a valid separation from that employment, but, due to the fact that his total wages amounted to less than eight times the weekly benefit rate, the board reverted to his prior employment with Atlantic Freight Lines, Inc., Uniontown, to determine his eligibility. See section 401 (f) of the Law, 43 PS § 801 (f). Claimant had been employed by Atlantic for approximately nine years prior to his discharge, on November 8, 1957, because of an
[ 188 Pa. Super. Page 187]
incident occurring on October 27, 1957. On the latter date claimant reported to the garage of Atlantic located on Stewart Avenue, Uniontown, to pick up his tractor, the bills of lading, and the turnpike tickets for his assigned trip to New York. Through an oversight claimant left the garage without these papers. He proceeded to the terminal safety line of Atlantic at another point in Uniontown. He left the safety line at the terminal with his tractor-trailer, and thereafter discovered the absence of the bills of lading and turnpike tickets. Claimant contacted the garage on Stewart Avenue and a driver advised him that the papers would be delivered to him in approximately a half hour. Rather than wait this length of time claimant returned through Uniontown to the garage on Stewart Avenue where he acquired the necessary papers. He then proceeded over new route 119, and at a point approximately a mile and a half north of Uniontown he became involved in an accident in which two persons were killed. He was exonerated. The following day claimant was suspended for an alleged violation of the employer's route instructions, and was discharged on November 8, 1957.
The route instruction alleged to have been violated, according to the evidence submitted by Atlantic, was one requiring drivers to proceed north toward the Pennsylvania Turnpike from the terminal safety line by old route 119 in preference to driving through Uniontown to new route 119. The old route 119 and the new route 119 run northwardly parallel to each other and converge at a point approximately five miles north of Uniontown. The new route is modern and better paved.
The bureau determined that the claimant was eligible for benefits. On appeal by Atlantic the referee believed that claimant had ...