decided: May 15, 1979.
KAREN L. SCHEEL, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Karen L. Scheel, No. B-146058-B.
Kevin B. Curley, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him J. Justin Blewitt, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 610]
Karen L. Scheel (claimant) was denied unemployment compensation benefits as a result of a referee's determination that claimant had been discharged for willful misconduct. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess.,
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 611]
P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), provides:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work. . . .
We have defined willful misconduct as a wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee, or negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973).
The Board made the following key findings of fact:
2. The claimant's job included the responsibility for opening the employer's store at the Granite Run Mall.
3. On several occasions the claimant opened the store later than the scheduled time.
4. The claimant was warned that her employer was dissatisfied with these late openings.
5. On or about October 15, 1976 the claimant opened the store later than the scheduled time and was discharged for this action.
Our examination of the record discloses that these findings of fact*fn1 made by the Board are supported by the evidence.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 612]
Habitually reporting late for work*fn2 and refusing to follow reasonable instruction relative to the time when the store under claimant's supervision should be opened for business constituted willful misconduct justifying a denial of benefits under the provisions of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Harbutz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 235, 309 A.2d 840 (1973). Therefore, we affirm the Board's order denying claimant unemployment compensation benefits.
And Now, this 15th day of May, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to Karen L. Scheel is hereby affirmed.