Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BLANCHE LEE v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY (PERSONNEL). UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA. BLANCHE LEE (08/19/76)

decided: August 19, 1976.

BLANCHE LEE
v.
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY (PERSONNEL). UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA. BLANCHE LEE, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Blanche Lee, No. B-127944.

COUNSEL

Ronald J. Harper, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Wilkinson Jr., and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 157]

On April 5, 1975, Blanche Lee (claimant) was discharged by her employer for falsifying the time records of employees under her supervision. Her subsequent application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied first by the Bureau of Employment Security, then by the referee and finally by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) because she had engaged in disqualifying willful misconduct as provided in Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Act), 43 P.S. § 802(e). This appeal followed.

The claimant had been employed by Temple University for approximately 17 years. She had served as a supervisor of employees in the housekeeping department during the last four or five years and on numerous occasions in that role she admitted to having marked time cards to reflect that an employee under her supervision had either reported to or departed from work on schedule when in fact the employee had not done so. It is clear that she made no attempt to conceal this practice, and that she believed the practice to be an acceptable procedure if an employee notified her that he or she would have to report late or depart early from work for a reason acceptable to her.*fn2

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 158]

The Board found, however, that work rules instituted in July 1973 had specifically prohibited "falsification" of time cards,*fn3 and that, at the time these rules became effective, the claimant's employer had held meetings of the supervisors to stress among other things the importance of maintaining accurate records of absences and latenesses so that employees would not be paid for time not worked. Nevertheless, as the record describes, the claimant continued to alter the time cards when she thought it appropriate and, when this fact came to the employer's attention, she was discharged.

Willful misconduct has been defined to mean:

"[A] wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations

[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 159]

    to the employer." Loder v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 484, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.