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.

JOYCE H. SPARE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/16/81)

decided: July 16, 1981.

JOYCE H. SPARE, 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 Joyce H. Spare, No. B-186237.

COUNSEL

Roger T. Margolis, for petitioner.

Joel G. Cavicchia, Associate Counsel, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Craig

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 571]

Claimant,*fn1 in this appeal from a denial of compensation by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, questions the referee's conclusion that her discharge was the result of willful misconduct.*fn2

Last employed as a clerk in the accounting department of Brockway Glass Company, the claimant was

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 572]

    suspended and later discharged for making a number of harassing phone calls to the plant manager, and for sending a sympathy card to his home which stated that he was being watched. The claimant admitted both to the police and to her employer that she had made the phone calls, sometimes threatening the manager with bodily harm, and other times simply hanging up.

Claimant's first argument for reversal is that the referee's findings of fact, in particular finding No. 9, are not supported by substantial evidence. That finding states: "Claimant was aware this type of incident could lead to disciplinary action."

Claimant attacks finding No. 9 on the ground that the employer had no work rule establishing disciplinary sanctions for the type of conduct in which she engaged. However, the record reveals ample evidence to support all the findings, including No. 9. Claimant's own testimony reflected her awareness of the gravity of her actions.*fn3

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 573]

A requirement that the employer have a work rule establishing disciplinary standards for harassment would be superfluous. Any employer certainly may expect its employees to refrain from actions which, even outside an employment relationship, are reprehensible. Claimant's misjudgment concerning the probable punishment for ...


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.