Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Rosemary Carl, No. B-206852.
Leon Ehrlich, Ehrlich & Ehrlich, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent, Department of Labor and Industry.
John M. Stott, Austin, Boland, Connor & Giorgi, for respondent, RME Federal Credit Union.
Judges Doyle, Palladino and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 257]
Rosemary Carl (Claimant) appeals from an adverse ruling by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the referee's decision to deny benefits because of Claimant's willful misconduct. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
The facts, which are not in dispute, can be easily summarized. Claimant was employed for more than five years by RME Federal Credit Union (Employer). During the course of her employment, Claimant accumulated three disciplinary memoranda*fn1 in her permanent
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 258]
file over a period of five months. Two years later, in January of 1982, Claimant received a fourth disciplinary notice when she complained about a bulletin issued by the president of the credit union, in which she felt she had been slighted.*fn2
The fifth and final incident for which Claimant was ultimately terminated and which the referee described as rising to the level of willful misconduct, occurred on January 20, 1982, and concerned Claimant's two day absence earlier that month. Claimant was aware of the policy followed by her Employer's Board of Directors with regard to remuneration for sick days. The policy was simply that a case by case determination would be made by the Board of Directors each time an employee called in sick. When Claimant learned that she would only be paid for one of her two sick days, she attempted to find out why the Board of Directors had refused to pay her for the other sick day since she had always been paid in the past. When no reason was given, Claimant became upset, cried, telephoned her mother, and left the office area briefly. On January 20, 1982, the Board of Directors unanimously decided to dismiss Claimant based on her past record and the most recent incident.*fn3
Claimant was denied benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn4 which directs that a claimant shall not be eligible for compensation for any week in which his ...