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.

ROSALIND BALLARD v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/24/83)

decided: January 24, 1983.

ROSALIND BALLARD, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Rosalind Ballard, No. B-193464.

COUNSEL

Eric J. Fischer, 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 Rogers.

Author: Rogers

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 307]

Rosalind Ballard, the claimant in this Unemployment Compensation case, was discharged from her employment as a general clerk for the Bell Telephone Company for reasons which the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review decided constituted willful misconduct which, by Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. ยง 802(e), rendered her ineligible for benefits.

The Board found that during the last eleven months of her employment, the claimant was absent 59 times. These absences were due to illness and were

[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 308]

    properly reported to her employer. However, during this same period, the claimant was tardy seven times for reasons such as oversleeping, late returning from lunch and traffic problems on the expressway.

In accordance with the employer's progressive disciplinary procedure, the claimant had been issued warnings on account of her established record of absenteeism and of tardiness. On October 27, 1980, the claimant was late in arriving at work and late in returning from lunch. The claimant was discharged from her employment due to her unacceptable attendance record.

The Office of Employment Security denied the claimant's application for benefits. On appeal after a hearing where the claimant and three employer representatives testified, a Referee granted benefits. The employer then appealed and the Board of Review reversed the referee's decision and denied benefits to the claimant. We reverse the Board of Review's order.

An employer's representative testified as follows:

Referee: Why would she have been discharged if she not only was paid for them [the absences], but they were ...


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.