Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Raymond J. Crilly, No. B-125462-B.
Elizabeth M. Iannelli, with her O'Brien & O'Brien Associates, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge DiSalle.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 222]
Raymond J. Crilly (Claimant) filed this petition for review from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated July 28, 1977, vacating its prior decision and affirming the determination by the Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee that he was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits because of conduct described
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 223]
as wilful misconduct under the provisions 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).
This case is before us for the second time. On Claimant's first appeal from the Board's order, dated April 25, 1975, we were compelled to remand for further findings of fact.*fn1 We concluded that the original findings were deficient in that the Board did not consider any justification presented by Claimant for his actions, nor did it determine whether the Employer maintained standards for lateness or absenteeism of its employees and, if so, whether these standards were applicable to Claimant. The Board, in compliance therewith, remanded the case to a referee for the taking of additional testimony. After the hearing, the Board reviewed the record as supplemented and, in support of its decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits to Claimant, made the following findings of fact:
1. The claimant was last employed by SEPTA-Red Arrow as a bus and trolley operator at $4.90 an hour for five years, and his last day of work was June 27, 1974.
2. The claimant had accumulated a record of tardiness and absenteeism prior to October 21, 1973 when he was involved in an accident which caused the claimant to be off work. The claimant was warned about his lateness and absences on several occasions.
3. As a result of a continuation of the conduct described in Finding Number Two, the claimant was suspended as ...