Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Dolores A. Groshans, No. B-200413.
Arthur L. Gutkin, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Doyle and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 544]
The claimant, Dolores A. Groshans, appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits to her for willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). We affirm.
The claimant was the Director of Dietary Services at the Bryn Mawr Terrace Convalescent Home from February 10, 1978 until July 3, 1981, the date of her discharge. Although the claimant worked at the convalescent home, she was employed by a food service management company which, under contract, provided food service to the home. Initially, the claimant was
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 545]
employed by the Litton Food Service Company, but due to financial difficulties, the food service changed hands, and as of June 8, 1981, Food Management Service, Inc., provided the food service to the home. As part of the new food service management, the claimant was requested to provide management coverage at the home on weekends. To provide this coverage, the claimant was told that she and her assistant could cover every other weekend. As consideration for this extra duty the claimant was given a $90.00 a week raise. When the claimant refused to work the first scheduled weekend or any weekend thereafter, she was discharged. Unemployment benefits were denied by the referee and Board upon the basis of willful misconduct. The claimant now appeals to this Court contending that the Board's findings of fact are unsupported by substantial evidence, and that the Board erred as a matter of law by concluding that she was guilty of willful misconduct. Specifically, the claimant alleges that she was never informed by her employer of her new working conditions or responsibilities, and therefore cannot be guilty of willful misconduct.
In the present case, the referee made the following findings of fact which were adopted by the Board.
1. The claimant was last employed by Food Management Service, Inc. as a Food Service Director, earning $400.00 per week from February 10, 1978 until July 3, 1981.
2. The claimant was discharged from her employment because of her refusal to comply with her contract as it pertained to weekend coverage by management.
3. The claimant felt that she was not consulted or negotiated with, and resented a letter from the ...