Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Nelson J. Jones, No. B-166612; and In Re: Claim of Nelson J. Jones, No. B-167455.
Karl A. Fritton, with him Judith G. Eagle, and H. Thomas Felix, II, Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Williams, Jr. 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 333]
Northeastern Hospital (Employer) seeks review of two separate Unemployment Compensation Board (Board) decisions in this consolidated appeal. The Board found Nelson J. Jones (Claimant) entitled to
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 334]
receive unemployment compensation benefits since he had not engaged in willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(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). The Board also rendered a decision denying the Employer relief from charges under Section 302(a)(1) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 782(a)(1).*fn1
Claimant was discharged as an assistant cook by Employer for failing to give proper notice of his absence from work. When he applied for unemployment
[ 64 Pa. Commw. Page 335]
compensation benefits, the Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security found him eligible. The Employer appealed and the referee reversed the Bureau's determination and denied benefits. Due to faulty recording equipment which rendered the previous hearing transcript inadequate, a second hearing took place. The Board, after considering this new transcript, remanded the case a second time to establish additional testimony for the Board's consideration. On December 5, 1978, the Board issued its decision reversing the referee and granting benefits to the Claimant. It is with respect to this decision that the Employer files its appeal regarding eligibility.
Concerning the second decision on appeal here, the Bureau denied the Employer's application for relief from charges under Section 302(a) of the Act. Both the referee and the Board affirmed that denial. The Employer now seeks relief in this Court. We affirm both decisions.
Claimant last worked on February 4, 1977. Due to scheduled days off and vacation days, Claimant was next scheduled to work on February 10, 1977, on the 5:30 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. shift. The Claimant testified that he was unable to report for work due to illness. The Employer requires "double notice" from its employees when they are absent.*fn2 The testimony was conflicting ...