Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Raymond J. Crilly, No. B-125462.
Roger J. Harrington, with him Elizabeth M. McKenna, and O'Brien & O'Brien Associates, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision of this case.
This is an appeal by Raymond J. Crilly (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying his application for unemployment compensation benefits due to his discharge from a position as a bus driver for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority for allegedly "failing to fulfill his on-time and attendance obligations." The Board's determination was premised on an application to the facts of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), which provides in pertinent part:
"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. . . ."
Our scope of review here is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Questions concerning credibility and the weight to be given the evidence are for the Board. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Devlin, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 162, 341 A.2d 221 (1975). The question of whether or not an employee's actions constitute willful misconduct is, of course, one of law and subject to our review. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Walton, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 47, 343 A.2d 70 (1975).
Unfortunately for all of the parties involved, we are unable to exercise our review here because of numerous inadequacies in the Board's findings of fact.
One of claimant's basic contentions is that he should not have been found in violation of Section 402(e) because
an earlier on-the-job accidental injury directly caused his inability to report on time. Evidence, although sparse in nature, was presented by both sides concerning the reasons for claimant's actions resulting in his dismissal. Our Supreme Court has recently ruled that the concept of good cause is, when raised, a necessary consideration in willful misconduct adjudications and therefore the Board should consider any justification presented by a claimant for his actions. See Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Pa. , 351 A.2d 631 (1976). The Board here failed to make any findings of fact on this crucial issue. This case ...