Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Stephen L. Zinicola, No. B-144631-B.
Judy Shoppsmith, with her William T. Smith, and Smith, Chamberlain & Farr, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 155]
Claimant, in this appeal from a denial of benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (board), was discharged by his employer, the Small Business Administration of the federal government (SBA), when he failed to report to work on August 15, 1975, his second day of a temporary assignment to a district office of the SBA in Pittsburgh. He had
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 156]
previously been assigned to the Harrisburg district of the SBA and remained attached to that office.
After attending meetings at an SBA field office in a small town south of Pittsburgh, claimant asked a co-worker to tell his supervisor there that he was ill and exhausted from travelling. He then rode a bus home to Harrisburg that evening.
The case presents two substantive issues: whether claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act)*fn1 because his discharge resulted from his own willful misconduct; and whether claimant disqualified himself under Section 401(b) of the Act*fn2 by not complying with regular reporting requirements.
With respect to compliance with unemployment compensation reporting requirements, the board found that claimant had his claim handled through a friend at the local office and visited the office only irregularly and informally until December of 1975, after which he did not visit the local office at all, but merely kept his friend apprised of his situation while they attended classes together at a local community college. The board also found that claimant had worked in the local Harrisburg office of the Bureau of Employment Security two previous summers and was aware of the reporting requirements of the law.
In its discussion the board found claimant's testimony that he thought he was thus complying with reporting requirements to be "patently incredible" and disqualified him under ...