Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William J. Walter, No. B-193326.
Patricia Ray, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 315]
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed a referee's denial of benefits to William Walter under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 Walter appeals. We affirm.
Walter, a maintenance man with General Steel, was discharged for excessive absenteeism and tardiness.
Walter asserts error in the Board's decision because of the pendency of a labor grievance arbitration. This contention is clearly without merit. The outcome of a union grievance procedure has no effect on the determination of eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. Welsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 53, 402 A.2d 1154 (1979).
The purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Law . . . is to compensate individuals who become unemployed through no fault of their
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 316]
own. Excessive absenteeism and tardiness violative of reasonable standards of conduct that an employer has a right to expect of employees constitutes [sic] willful misconduct. Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867 (1975). An agreement by an employer to reinstate an employee would not change the nature of such conduct. (Emphasis added.)
Id. at 55, 402 A.2d at 1155.
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is ...