Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Edward J. Eyring, No. B-163887.
Thomas E. Timby, and Timby and Dillon, for appellant.
Thomas S. Cadwallader, III, and Cadwallader, Bebbington, Habgood & Cadwallader, for appellees.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 618]
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying benefits to petitioner after a determination that his job performance included conduct which constitutes "willful misconduct" under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). We affirm.
Petitioner was last employed as superintendent of buildings by the George School of Newton, Pennsylvania, for approximately four years. His employment was terminated effective June 1, 1978, after his employer's business manager had determined that petitioner had failed to perform his duties and after the
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 619]
business manager had notified petitioner of the reasons for his termination by letter on May 6, 1978. Specifically, the letter stated that petitioner had failed to oversee a heating system failure, had failed to prepare plans for the testing of the electrical system following an almost total breakdown, and had failed to follow instructions to correct over-chlorination of the swimming pool. The business manager also cited petitioner's failure to familiarize himself with the heating plan of the school's sports center and petitioner's failure to personally notify the business manager before taking leave to attend his mother's funeral.
Upon petitioner's application for benefits, the Bureau of Employment Security*fn1 (Bureau) found that he was ineligible due to "willful misconduct" consisting of insubordination to his superior and disregard of his duties. Petitioner filed a petition for review, and a hearing was held on July 17, 1978, at which the referee found that while petitioner exhibited an ineptness in discharging responsibilities, he performed his work to the best of his ability and did not deliberately disregard instructions. Accordingly, the referee reversed the Bureau's decision.
The employer then filed a petition for appeal to the Board and submitted therewith a letter from the business manager reiterating the employer's position that the petitioner did not attempt to comply with instructions or learn systems. Without another hearing, the Board reversed the referee's decision on September 8, 1978, finding that petitioner had deliberately disregarded a directive to obtain proper chemical analysis for chlorination of the swimming pool, had refused to familiarize himself with the heating system, and had been absent without proper notice. The Board concluded that the record evidenced an accumulation of
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 620]
incidents in which petitioner chose to ignore instructions and to take no action in job areas for which he held responsibility. This was found to be substantial evidence of conduct in ...