Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Annette Culbreath, No. B-177946.
Margaret A. Lenzi, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., MacPhail and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 626]
This is an appeal from a determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board)
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 627]
which affirmed a referee's decision denying claimant unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
Annette Culbreath, claimant, was a CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) employee who was last employed by the County of Delaware as a clerk-typist in the office of the Court Administrator in Media, Pennsylvania. She was responsible for handling the office supplies and insuring their proper delivery to the appropriate district justice's office.
The Deputy Administrator of the Office of the Court Administrator found claimant's work to be unsatisfactory and unacceptable. Specifically, he complained that claimant failed to follow instructions, wasted time, and exhibited an improper attitude on the telephone. Claimant was informed of her superiors' dissatisfaction with her work and was warned about her unsuitable conduct. When, after the warning, her employer failed to see an improvement in her work habits, claimant was dismissed from her job.
Shortly after her employment was terminated, claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits. The Bureau of Employment Security denied claimant's application, deciding that she had been properly discharged from her employment for "willful misconduct". Claimant filed an appeal from this ruling and a referee's hearing was held. The referee affirmed the determination of the Bureau and the claimant further appealed that decision to the Board. The Board affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed.
Claimant contends that the Board's findings of fact are not supported by substantial and competent evidence. She asserts that ...