Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Plummer Askew, No. B-175100.
David Freeman, for petitioner.
Steven Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 261]
In this unemployment compensation appeal, the claimant*fn1 questions the board's*fn2 affirmance of a referee's decision which denied compensation on the basis of the willful misconduct provision of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn3
The employer discharged claimant January 12, 1979 for being absent from work on January 9, 1980, without reporting off.
Claimant contends that his failure to report off on January 9, 1979 did not constitute an act of willful misconduct because he was visiting his parole officer, as his employer knew he was required to do on the second Tuesday of every month.
However, according to the record, the claimant testified that before January 9, 1979, he had not visited his parole officer for three months.*fn4 That testimony,
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 262]
evidencing no actual pattern on which the employer could rely, precludes this court from deciding that the employer knew or should have known the reason for claimant's absence. Hence, the claimant's failure to report off cannot be excused.
A single act of misconduct may constitute willful misconduct and preclude the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. See Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 314 A.2d 528 (1974). Here the claimant's own ...