decided: December 14, 1982.
FRANK COLACHINO, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Frank Colachino, No. B-193788.
O. Randolph Bragg, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 354]
In this unemployment compensation case, claimant Frank Colachino has appealed from a denial of benefits after his employer, a manufacturing concern, terminated him from his job as a machine operator on the ground of willful misconduct, for failure to work overtime when requested.
Unchallenged board findings 3 and 4 establish that the claimant was aware of the seasonal nature of the industry, requiring mandatory overtime between July and the end of the year. The claimant's appeal questions other findings which read:
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 3555]
. Claimant was verbally warned regarding his failure to work scheduled overtime on July 26, 1980.
6. Claimant was scheduled to work overtime September 20, and 21, 1980, and the work order was posted several days in advance.
8. Claimant was told that if he did not work the required overtime, he would not have a job to come back to on Monday.
An additional finding, that the claimant refused to work the required overtime for personal reasons, is undisputed.
The claimant, in addition to questioning the record basis for the three findings quoted above, contends that his refusal to work was justified by necessity, and also claims that we should remand for a new hearing because the referee did not advise him of his entitlement to counsel and other rights, as required by 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a), Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981).
However, to avoid unneeded additional proceedings, we have declined to remand when scrutiny of the record clearly supports a claim by the board that the claimant suffered no prejudice because of the referee's omission. Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 275, 431 A.2d 378 (1981); Snow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 396, 433 A.2d 922 (1981). Cf. Wise v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 115, 450 A.2d 314 (1982). We have examined the record, simultaneously with reviewing the other issues, to determine if prejudice was the result.
Although the claimant contends that the fifth and sixth findings -- that claimant was warned regarding failure to work overtime on an earlier occasion, and
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 356]
that the overtime order in question was posted in advance -- are based on hearsay, we find no indication that they were.*fn1 As to the sixth finding, the witness clearly testified that "we posted the work order up on Thursday."
Most importantly, the record shows no basis for upsetting the eighth finding, that the claimant was warned of termination if he did not work the requested overtime. That finding is based upon a clear admission by the claimant that he was thus warned.*fn2
We find insufficient justification for the claimant's refusal. He testified that, because his "parents are old and under the doctor's care," he had "things to do around the house . . . ." Such personal concerns, not rising to a level of necessity, provide no warrant for the refusal. Robertson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 307, 417 A.2d 293 (1980).
Finally, returning to the key issue of prejudice arising from a lack of advice as to legal rights, we perceive that the claimant, with the aid of counsel, might have succeeded in weakening or eliminating the testimony of the general foreman by cross-examination exploring the basis for his statements. However, the key findings would nevertheless rest upon the claimant's own forthright admission, in which he acknowledged that he rejected the overtime work and that he was warned of termination for failure to do so. We
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 357]
cannot bring ourselves to hold that we should consider the claimant prejudiced for lack of advice to withhold that forthright acknowledgment.
We therefore affirm.
Now, December 14, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated March 30, 1981, decision No. B-193788, is affirmed.