Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

JOSEPH OLDYNSKI v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/04/81)

decided: March 4, 1981.

JOSEPH OLDYNSKI, 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 Joseph Oldynski, No. B-171273.

COUNSEL

Louis J. Krzemien, Jr., Gondelman, Baxter, Mansmann & McVerry, for petitioner.

John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Blatt, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 286]

The petitioner, Joseph Oldynski, appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which held him ineligible for unemployment benefits because he had been discharged for willful misconduct as required in 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. ยง 802(e).

On November 10, 1978, the petitioner failed to report to his employment with Townsend and Bottom, Inc. and on November 13, 1978, he called his employer

[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 287]

    to report that his car had been wrecked and that he could not return until November 20, 1978. However, he did not report for work on that date, but he called his employer again on November 22, 1978, to say that he was still looking for a new car. His absence continued through December 1, 1978, without any further notification, and on that date he was discharged for excessive absenteeism.

The petitioner's application for benefits was first granted by the Office of Employment Security, but upon appeal by the employer and after a hearing was held at which evidence was taken, a referee reversed the grant of benefits, holding that the petitioner had been discharged for willful misconduct. The Board affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed.

The petitioner contends that there was no showing of willful or wanton behavior on his part sufficient to constitute willful misconduct. He argues that (1) his transportation difficulties amounted to good cause for his absences and, (2) his failure to report his absences more than twice shows no more than simple negligence, not any willful disregard of his employer's interest.

Willful misconduct has been defined as the wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interests; a disregard of behavior standards which the employer has a right to expect from his employee; a deliberate violation of rules; or negligence such as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties. Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 305, 405 A.2d 1387 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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