Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EDWARD SCHLERNITZER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (10/16/80)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: October 16, 1980.

EDWARD SCHLERNITZER, PETITIONER
v.
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 Edward Schlernitzer, No. B-169772.

COUNSEL

Brewington W. Crosswell, with him William Shimer, Jr., for petitioner.

William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 277]

Claimant Edward Schlernitzer appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (board) which affirmed a referee's decision holding that claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. 802(e),*fn1 because his discharge from Pennhurst State School (employer) was precipitated by willful misconduct, allegedly failing to report off to the employer before being absent on six occasions.*fn2

Claimant contends that the record is devoid of substantial evidence which is required to support a finding of willful misconduct. We cannot agree.

The facts are not in dispute.*fn3 The board found that

[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 278]

    employer's policy concerning employee absenteeism required employees to report off to employer before being absent.

Employer's witness, Betty Jones, testified that on several occasions she spoke with claimant and explained to him that he could lose his job if he continued failing to report off before being absent from work. Claimant testified that he was absent for illness and that he knew he was required to notify the employer before being absent from work.*fn4 He denied being told that he could lose his job, but the issue of credibility was for the board.

Despite the fact that claimant had undergone long term treatment at Pennhurst State School, we cannot, in view of claimant's own testimony, hold that claimant was unable to comprehend his duty to notify the employer before being absent from work.

Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the board.

Order

And Now, this 16th day of October, 1980, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.