Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Lillie Dinkins, No. B-177237.
Kathleen R. Mulligan, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, Assistant Attorney General, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 267]
Lillie Dinkins (petitioner) has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which upheld a denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e) (relating to willful misconduct). We affirm.
The petitioner had been employed as a secretary by Allegheny General Hospital (employer). Her duties included the scheduling of appointments for cancer patients in the employer's radiation and oncology departments. On June 22, 1979, a series of incidents occurred which led to termination of the petitioner's employment. The sole issue in this appeal is whether those incidents constituted willful misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
The Board found from substantial evidence that, on the morning of June 22, 1979, the petitioner became very upset following a change in instructions concerning the scheduling of an appointment for a cancer patient. The petitioner then left her desk for approximately 45 minutes, during which time the oncology department supervisor unsuccessfully tried to contact her. Later that afternoon, the petitioner was asked to attend a meeting with both of her department supervisors
[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 268]
to discuss these events. In the course of the meeting, the petitioner became so disruptive that the supervisors could not proceed with the discussion. As a result, the petitioner was discharged.
The petitioner first contends that it was improper for the Board to consider the events which transpired at the afternoon meeting, in finding willful misconduct, because the decision to terminate her employment was made before the meeting started. This contention is not supported by the evidence. Colleen Murphy and Patricia Williams were the department supervisors who had the authority to discharge the petitioner. Another hospital employee, Dr. Zidar, wanted to discharge the petitioner immediately, but he did not have the authority to do so. Williams scheduled the meeting between herself, the petitioner, Murphy, and Zidar to attempt to resolve this problem, but, during the course of the meeting, the petitioner continuously interrupted and refused to listen to the supervisors. At that point, the supervisors decided to discharge the petitioner. This testimony was not refuted and clearly established that the petitioner's conduct at the meeting was a major factor in the termination of her employment.
The petitioner next contends that, even if the Board could properly consider the events which took place at the afternoon meeting, the finding of willful ...