Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of May Fritzo, No. B-178644.
Jeffrey L. Greenwald, for petitioner.
Francine Ostrovsky, Assistant Attorney General, with her Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 270]
This is an appeal by May Fritzo (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). The Board found the claimant ineligible for benefits under the provisions of Section
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 271402]
(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Additionally, the Board determined the claimant had received a nonfault overpayment of $48 which is subject to recoupment in accordance with the provisions of Section 804(b) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 874(b).*fn1 We affirm.
The claimant was regularly employed as a box assembler by the Fredwill Manufacturing Co., Inc. (employer) for approximately 16 years. She was laid off, on August 3, 1979, due to lack of work, with the understanding she was obligated to resume her job on Monday, August 20, 1979. On or about August 16, 1979, the claimant announced to her floor lady she would not be at work during the week of August 20, 1979 because she had made plans to take a vacation. She did not report to work from August 20, 1979 through August 23, 1979.
The Board found, inter alia, that (1) the employer's policy mandates the dismissal of an employee absent for three consecutive days without notice, (2) the claimant was fully acquainted with this policy, and (3) the claimant never requested the employer's permission to be absent from work. On August 23, 1979, the employer discharged the claimant for a violation of the aforesaid policy.
On appeal, the claimant contends that (1) evidence in the record is inadequate to establish the
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 272]
existence of the absentee policy she allegedly violated and (2) if an applicable absentee policy was shown to exist, she complied with its ...