Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Herbert Partsch, No. B-187297.
Thomas M. Kalinyak, for petitioner.
William Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Deborah A. Hughes, for intervenor.
Judges Mencer, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. Judge Palladino did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 294]
Herbert Partsch (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which reversed the decision of a referee and found Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).
Claimant had been employed by W.C. McQuaide, Inc. (Employer) as a truck driver for approximately
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 295]
fifteen years when he was discharged by Employer on or about May 7, 1980. The record reveals that the reason for the discharge was Claimant's failure on May 5, 1980 to request authorization from Employer's dispatcher to return from a delivery trip without having completed two deliveries. The failure to request authorization was, the Board found, in violation of an Employer rule requiring such authorization.*fn1
Claimant alleges, and the Board found, that the reason he did not make the deliveries was that while driving on May 5 his right leg was sore and his right foot became numb rendering driving difficult. The pain and numbness were apparently results of a work-related injury suffered in June, 1979 which limited Claimant's ability to drive for prolonged time periods. Claimant testified at a hearing before the referee that although he did telephone the dispatcher following his last delivery of the day, his mind was so clouded by the pain in his leg that he did not request the proper authorization to return with undelivered goods.
Following his discharge, Claimant's application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by the Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security which found that his discharge was due to willful misconduct. Claimant appealed and, after a hearing, the referee reversed finding that Claimant's actions did not amount to an intentional and substantial disregard of his duties and obligations. The Board subsequently ...