Appeal, No. 264, Oct. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-63606, in re claim of Karl Hohnstock, Jr. Decision affirmed.
John P. Yatsko, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 501]
In this unemployment compensation case, the bureau, the referee and the board in turn concluded that the claimant was disqualified under the provision of § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(e).
This sub-section provides that an employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work; ..."
The board found that the claimant had a history of unreported and unauthorized absences and that "Although work was scheduled for the claimant of December 5, 1960, he did not report for work [and when he did report] on Friday, December 9, he was discharged for his absence."
The credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it are for the board. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 403, 116 A.2d 271 (1955).
Repeated absences without good cause or without notice to the employer constitute willful misconduct
[ 196 Pa. Super. Page 502]
under § 402(e), supra. Devlin Unemployment Compensation Case, 165 Pa. Superior Ct. 153, 67 A.2d 639 (1949); Shanor Unemployment Compensation Case, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 301, 146 A.2d 336 (1958); Soilis Unemployment ...