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.

JANET S. LOVE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/30/81)

decided: September 30, 1981.

JANET S. LOVE, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. G.C. MURPHY COMPANY, INTERVENOR



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Janet S. Love, No. B-176894.

COUNSEL

Alton P. Arnold, Jr., for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

Richard A. Chesnik, for intervenor.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.

Author: Crumlish

[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 100]

The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's denial of benefits to Janet S. Love, finding willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 We affirm.

Love, a security guard, on June 7, 1979, was discharged for violation of employer rules prohibiting the setting aside of store merchandise for purchase in other than authorized store areas.

Although conflicting testimony was heard, the referee found, within his province, Thomas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 630, 410 A.2d 101 (1980), that there were company rules of which Love was not only aware, but as a security guard was under a duty to enforce; and that she violated the rules despite repeated warnings.

In the alternative, Love contends that she was not guilty of willful misconduct since the rule had not been strictly enforced. She asserts that this erratic enforcement gave her good cause for her non-compliance. We disagree.

It is not unreasonable to expect employees to comply with employer rules, especially when compliance is requested by repeated warnings. Prior tolerance does not justify repeated violations. Bullock v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 528, 402 A.2d 734 (1979).

[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 101]

Our scope of review is limited to whether the Board's findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence. Remaly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ...


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.