Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Harold E. White, Sr., No. B-198031.
Harold E. White, Sr., petitioner, for himself.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 197]
Harold E. White, Sr. (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which, pursuant to 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), affirmed the referee's denial of unemployment benefits.
The claimant was last employed as a roofer. His dismissal was preceded by three incidents which were found to constitute willful misconduct.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 198]
In the first incident the claimant refused the employer's order to install spouting clips on a particular job, answering his employer with a colorful, yet sarcastic remark.*fn1 He denies making the remark, stating that he would have completed the task after he had cleaned his hands. It is undisputed that the installation of the clips was well within the job duties and that the claimant was aware of this.
In the second incident, the claimant was found to have harassed his employer for excusing the ten-minute tardiness of a foreman, continuing this harassment all day on the same day on which the dispute over the spouting clips occurred. The referee found that the foreman in question had been with the employer for 31 years and had a weak heart, as a result of which the employer tried to avoid pushing him too hard.
The third incident involved the claimant's failure at a later date to report to work. He argues that he did report to the job site on the day concerned, found no one present, and could not find any instructions at the time clock as to where to go and what to do and so he left. The referee found, however, that the claimant did not report and did not telephone the employer as he was required to do.
Due to a mechanical failure, the transcript of the original hearing before the referee on May 28, 1981 was unavailable, so a second hearing was held on July 2, 1981 before a referee appointed by the Board, and it was on the basis of this record that the Board affirmed the referee's denial of benefits. The claimant, who has proceeded in this matter pro se, argues that due process was violated and that he has ...