Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William Pollard, No. B-135921.
Brian R. Steiner, with him Frumer & Etkin, for petitioner.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of two. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 647]
William M. Pollard (Claimant) appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).
On December 11, 1975, Claimant was injured in a non-work-related automobile accident. At the time, he was employed as a clerk-typist trainee by the City of Philadelphia's Youth Study Center (Employer). Initially, Claimant was able to return to work, but on December 19, 1975, he informed Employer that his injuries necessitated his absence. The record indicates that Claimant notified Employer of his required absence again on December 23 and 25. From that time forward, nothing more was heard from Claimant.
On January 11, 1976, Claimant was discharged due to his failure to report to work for 15 consecutive days or, in the alternative, to call and inform Employer of his absence. Subsequently, Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits. Denials by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) and the referee were affirmed by the Board following an additional hearing.
The Board found as fact that Claimant did not contact Employer after December 25, 1975, until January 12, 1976. It further found that Employer's policy is that an employe's position is treated as abandoned after an absence of 15 calendar days. In its opinion, the Board noted:
We believe the claimant was absent without notice from December 25, 1975 to January 12, 1976. We do not find the allegation that the claimant contacted the employer after December
[ 33 Pa. Commw. Page 64825]
, 1976 [sic] substantiated. . . . We conclude that the claimant's conduct rose to the level of willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law.
Claimant's first contention is that he properly followed Employer's call-in procedures and in fact contacted Employer on a regular basis from the date of his first absence on December 19, 1975, until his separation. After hearing, the Board ...