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.

JAMAR CROWDER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/07/81)

decided: April 7, 1981.

JAMAR CROWDER, 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 Jamar Crowder, No. B-163990-B.

COUNSEL

Norma Chase, for petitioner.

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

Judges Blatt, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson, Jr.

Author: Blatt

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 333]

The claimant*fn1 appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's decision that he was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because he had been discharged from his employment for willful misconduct.*fn2

The claimant was employed as a bricklayer helper by the United States Steel Corporation (employer), and on December 2, 1975, he was treated by the employer's physician for back pains. The physician advised the claimant to seek help from his personal physician and the claimant's ensuing absence from work on December 3, 1975, was reported to the employer by the employer's physician. On December 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1975, however, the claimant did not report for work nor did he notify the employer of his absence. The employer informed the claimant that, due to his failure to report his four-day absence, he was discharged.*fn3 The Office of Employment Security determined that the discharge was for willful misconduct

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 334]

    and denied benefits. After a hearing, a referee affirmed the Office's determination and the referee's decision was later affirmed by the Board. The claimant argues here that, in the absence of a finding by the Board that the employer had a rule requiring daily notification of absences, the claimant's conduct did not constitute willful misconduct. We agree.

The Board's relevant findings are as follows:

2. On December 3, 1975, the claimant reported to the employer's dispensary and was advised to see his personal physician.

3. The claimant's absence from work on December 3 was reported to his supervisor by the company physician.

4. The claimant did not report for work on December 4, 5, 6 and 7, 1975, and did not ...


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.