Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Alice E. Petery, No. B-148848.
H. Joseph Flynn, with him Trigg & Flynn, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 465]
Alice E. Petery (Claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing a further appeal from a referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act)*fn1 for willful misconduct. We affirm.
1. Claimant was last employed by Lancaster County Office of the Aging as an activities coordinator at an annual salary of $9,031.00. She had been employed for 1 year and her last day was March 21, 1977.
2. On February 24, 1977 claimant participated in a meeting with her supervisor at which time her duties, performance and possible changes of personnel and claimant's duties were discussed. The Executive Director requested that all discussions be kept confidential.
3. On March 21, 1977 claimant wrote a letter to the Executive Director informing him that she had spoken with center personnel regarding her presence and performance and as a result she was given a choice of resigning or being terminated.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 466]
Claimant argues that she did not violate the directive given to her by her supervisor; that her conduct amounted at most to a misunderstanding of the directive and not willful misconduct; and that she did not violate a standard which the employer had a right to impose. We will address these issues seriatum.
Claimant admits the directive given to her at the close of the meeting with her supervisor was to keep confidential "the things discussed at this meeting." Claimant reflected upon the directive for a few days and then determined that she would discuss her job performance, which was a topic at the meeting with fellow employees. This unilateral decision was made without request of or consultation with the employer. It is clear to this Court that there is ...