Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BYRON K. WESTON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/09/87)

decided: February 9, 1987.

BYRON K. WESTON, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Byron K. Weston, No. B-248471.

COUNSEL

Richard G. Fishman, for petitioner.

Jonathan Zorach, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 557]

This is an appeal by Byron K. Weston (petitioner) of an order by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act)*fn1 (willful misconduct).

Petitioner was employed by Corvette America (employer) as a door-panel remanufacturer at a final rate of pay of Four Dollars and Seventy-five Cents ($4.75) per hour. On October 18, 1985, petitioner submitted a request for vacation days for the dates of December 2, 1985, and December 16, 1985. This request was granted. However, petitioner did not return to work on Tuesday, December 3, 1985, following his first vacation day. Petitioner has continually asserted that his absence from work on December 3, 1985, did not constitute willful misconduct.*fn2 However, the Office of Employment Security (OES) denied petitioner's application for unemployment compensation benefits, concluding: that petitioner's absence was taken for the purpose of hunting; that petitioner had not requested the day off in the manner prescribed by company policy, and past practice; and, therefore, that said absence constituted willful misconduct. On appeal, the referee affirmed, finding willful

[ 103 Pa. Commw. Page 558]

    misconduct was established by the following pertinent findings of fact:

2. The employer's policy provides that all vacation time must be requested in writing at least seven days in advance and must be approved by a supervisor and a corporate officer.

3. The claimant [petitioner] was aware of the employer's vacation policy.

4. On October 18, 1985, the claimant [petitioner] submitted a vacation request for the dates of December 2, 1985 and December 16, 1985; this request was approved.

5. The claimant [petitioner] was absent from work on December 3, 1985 without permission ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.