decided: July 25, 1983.
ABRAHAM HAIGLER, PETITIONER
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 Abraham Haigler, No. B-202065.
Abraham Haigler, petitioner, for himself.
Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Williams, Jr., Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 633]
Abraham Haigler (Claimant) has brought this appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits on the basis of willful misconduct.*fn1 We affirm.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 634]
Claimant was last employed as a porter for National Publishing Company (Employer). Claimant had a history of excessive absenteeism related to a problem with alcohol, had been disciplined for such absences and had been warned that future absences would result in discharge. On August 10, 1981, Claimant reported off, informing Employer that he would be out to care for his daughter who had contracted a rash. Employer did not accept the excuse for this final absence and discharged Claimant in light of his attendance record. The Board also found that Claimant's absence on August 10 was not justified since Claimant did not show that he was needed to care for his daughter. The Board determined that this unjustified absenteeism supported a conclusion of disqualifying willful misconduct.
The law*fn2 regarding absenteeism as willful misconduct is succinctly stated. Absenteeism is considered disqualifying willful misconduct when unjustified, or when not properly reported according to the employer's rules. See Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 65, 67, 441 A.2d 516, 517 (1982).
There is in this case no question regarding the proper reporting of Claimant's absence. However, the Board, acting in its role as factfinder,*fn3 did determine that it was not necessary for Claimant to miss further work to care for his daughter. Thus, Claimant has failed to justify his absence. In view of his history of excessive absenteeism related to his personal
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 635]
problem with alcohol, combined with the warnings and disciplinary actions previously given by Employer, we shall affirm the denial of benefits.*fn4
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision Number B-202065, dated December 23, 1981, is hereby affirmed.