Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Appeal of Eugene R. Moore, Jr., No. B-213945.
Karen I. Jackson, Leonard M. Sagot Associates, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig, Palladino and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
Claimant, Eugene R. Moore, Jr., appeals from a referee's decision, affirmed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which declared Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The denial of benefits was based on Claimant's willful misconduct;*fn1 more specifically, Claimant's history of absenteeism.
P.T. Components, Inc. (Employer) last employed Claimant as a stock selector.*fn2 Claimant had acquired a poor attendance record at work and during the course of his employment Claimant also developed a drug and alcohol problem which necessitated his entry into a rehabilitation program, offered as a service by his Employer. Before entering the rehabilitation program, Claimant was told that upon his return to work, his absenteeism problem could not continue, and if it did, Claimant would be terminated.
Claimant returned to work after completing the program but did not improve his attendance record. Claimant missed six days for personal reasons*fn3 and was out another six days without explaining his absence to his Employer. Shortly thereafter Claimant was discharged for his absenteeism.
This Court's scope of review where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed before the Board, is to determine whether an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. James v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 230, 429 A.2d 782 (1981).
Each of the factual findings made below is fully supported by the record, leaving only the question of whether or not Claimant's conduct rose to the level of willful misconduct. We believe that it did.
Following a history of attendance problems, Claimant was warned on more than one occasion that further absenteeism would result in his termination. Not only did Claimant extend his poor attendance record, ...