Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Samuel R. Corbin, No. B-216197.
Dennis I. Turner, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 219]
Samuel R. Corbin (claimant) petitions for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming and effectively adopting the decision*fn1 of a referee denying extended benefits
[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 220]
due to willful misconduct connected to his work*fn2 and holding him in receipt of a non-fault overpayment of benefits.*fn3
The claimant was employed by the Braun Baking Company -- ITT (employer) and his last day of work was October 23, 1980. He was scheduled to report to work on October 24, 1980 at 1:30 a.m., but overslept and did not report. He did not contact the employer until approximately two hours after the start of his shift. In his capacity as a union steward, he had attended a grievance meeting on October 23, 1980 which was not concluded until 6:30 p.m. and he ascribed his oversleeping to what he felt was an insufficient amount of time between the meeting and the start of his shift.
He was discharged the following day when he picked up his paycheck because this incident resulted in his exceeding the point total for discharge under the employer's attendance control program. This program, which was initiated with the approval of the claimant's union, established a system of assigning points for various attendance violations and operated progressively through stages of warning and suspension to discharge. The employer complied
[ 87 Pa. Commw. Page 221]
with the warning and suspension stages of the system and in August, 1980 when the claimant was suspended for five days for absenteeism and tardiness, he was advised in a letter from his supervisor that he had accumulated thirteen points and that one more point would result in his discharge.
The only issue raised by the claimant for our review is whether the referee erred by admitting the employer's ...