Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Clyde Johnson, No. B-176716.
Daniel B. Michie, Jr., of counsel Fell, Spalding, Goff & Rubin, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Ruben A. Rodriquez, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondents.
Judges Mencer, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 292]
Petitioner (employer) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which granted benefits to Claimant (employee). We affirm the Board's order.
Claimant's application for unemployment benefits was initially rejected by the Office of Employment Security (Office). Following Claimant's appeal and a hearing, a referee affirmed the Office's disallowance of benefits. Thereafter, Claimant appealed to the Board. Because the original transcript of the record was unavailable, the Board remanded the case for additional
[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 293]
testimony before a new referee acting as a hearing officer for the Board. Based on the evidence presented at the remand hearing, the Board granted benefits to Claimant. Petitioner appeals the Board's award.
The Board ascertained that Claimant was hired by Petitioner as an inexperienced worker whom Petitioner expected to train as a welder. In addition, the Board determined that although Claimant performed his job to the best of his ability, Petitioner considered Claimant's rate of production to be unsatisfactory and discharged Claimant. The reason underlying Claimant's low rate of production and subsequent dismissal is the subject of this appeal.
The Board found that Claimant's low production was "due to his inexperience and lack of supervision" and that Claimant "did not on any occasion intentionally disregard instructions from [Petitioner]." However, Petitioner argued that Claimant's low production resulted from Claimant's ignoring instructions and that Claimant's noncompliance with Petitioner's reasonable directions constituted willful misconduct 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).*fn1
To establish Claimant's deliberate disregard of instructions, Petitioner cites three incidents: (1) failure to submit time cards; (2) refusal to use a coated welding electrode, and ...