Appeal, No. 12, Oct. T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-73375, in re claim of Charles W. Ruppert. Decision affirmed.
Charles W. Ruppert, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 515]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
In this unemployment compensation case the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review adopted the findings of fact made by the referee and concluded that the appellant brought about his unemployment through acts of willful misconduct connected with his work and therefore is ineligible for benefits under the provisions of section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
The referee found as facts that the appellant was employed for approximately six months by the John A. Beard & Co., Reading, Pa., as a junior staff accountant, paid at the rate of $85 per week. His last day of work there was June 22, 1962. Appellant had a history of frequent tardiness during his employment concerning which he had been warned on several occasions by his supervisor, but his tardiness continued, ranging from several minutes to an hour and more in consecutive work weeks. A short time prior to June 22, 1962, appellant requested permission to be absent Monday and Tuesday, June 25 and 26, which permission was granted by his supervisor. Claimant, however, failed to return to work on June 27, 28 or 29, and failed to get in touch with his employer at any time during that week. As a result of claimant's unexcused absence and his repeated tardiness, he was informed by letter from his employer that he was discharged.
Appellant applied for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, and although duly notified of the time and place of the scheduled hearing he failed to appear to testify in his own behalf.
Appellant admits in his brief that he was frequently tardy and absent without direct permission, but he contends that he was not consciously responsible for
[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 516]
these actions because of a personal psychological problem characterized by a periodic loss of conscious control which apparently prevented appellant's promptness or the giving of required notice when he found it necessary to absent himself. He therefore argues that he is not guilty of such willful misconduct which would disqualify him from receiving benefits.
The employer in this case gave the appellant every opportunity to overcome his problem but he was repeatedly warned that he must do so in order to remain an employe and so ...