Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Ernestine Webster, No. B-130314.
Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
This case was argued on October 29, 1976, and the decision was filed December 2, 1976 (366 A.2d 627 (1976)). On December 13, 1976, intervening appellee, Ernestine Webster, applied for reargument on the basis that she had been granted permission to intervene, had filed briefs, but had not received notice of the oral argument on October 29, 1976. She, in fact, did not know of it and did not appear. Reargument was allowed.
Two matters were brought up on reargument that were not considered in the December 2, 1976, opinion. The first is that the first opinion was factually inaccurate when it stated:
A few days after claimant returned to work,*fn1 her supervisor called her and the designated trainee to his office and explained that the training must begin.
Actually, the supervisor testified that he delayed, "let's say a week, 2 weeks." The first opinion was endeavoring to give intervening appellee the benefit of
every doubt. Actually, the supervisor was attempting to help intervening appellee with this face-saving delay.
The other point raised was that the first opinion, while relying on Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Pa. , 351 A.2d 631 (1976), failed to take into account the good cause of claimant's refusal to train the designated employee. On the contrary the Court and the opinion dealt directly with this critical matter, concluding that, as found by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) the employer's request was reasonable. This Court concluded then and reaffirms now that the claimant's refusal was unreasonable and constituted willful misconduct.
Accordingly, we will enter an order affirming our December 2, 1976 order reversing the order of the Board.
Now, February 25, 1977, the order of this Court, dated December 2, 1976, reversing the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of ...