Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Raymond J. Borst, No. B-257113.
Judith E. Wilson, for petitioner.
Bernadette Paul, Assistant Counsel, with her, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Barry, Smith, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Smith.
[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 199]
Petitioner Raymond J. Borst (Claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 relating to discharge for willful misconduct in connection with one's work. The issue presented on appeal is whether claimant's failure to comply with his Employer's directive constituted willful misconduct under the circumstances. We reverse the Board's decision.
Claimant was employed as a truck driver for eight months by Top Roc Precast (Employer). Shortly after
[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 200]
Claimant began his employment, his father was hired as transportation manager by Employer and began involving Claimant in routine office paperwork although Claimant's position continued as truck driver. During the late afternoon on October 2, 1986, while Claimant's father was out of town at a job site, the Employer's president requested Claimant to arrange a delivery schedule for the following Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Scheduling deliveries was ordinarily a function of the transportation manager and one which Claimant had never performed. Nonetheless, Claimant made out a schedule using the only three Employer trucks available which Employer's president rejected by telephone, instructing Claimant instead to rent trucks to make deliveries the following week.
Claimant immediately telephoned a truck rental company as he had been instructed to do and was advised that the person with whom he needed to speak was not available. The next morning, October 3, 1986, Claimant again contacted the truck rental company and was told that no trucks meeting Employer's specifications were available. Meanwhile, two of the three Employer trucks which had been available for the deliveries broke down, and Claimant spent time the morning of October 3 arranging to have these vehicles towed and repaired, until about 10:30 a.m., when the Employer's president telephoned to see if Claimant had secured the rental trucks. Upon learning that Claimant had been unable to rent any trucks or to provide for the following week's deliveries, the president informed Claimant that he was fired.
Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits which were denied by the local Office of Employment Security (OES) on the basis of Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed this determination, and after a hearing before a referee on January 16, 1987, a
[ 115 Pa. Commw. Page 201]
decision was issued affirming the OES determination. Claimant filed a further appeal to the Board which issued an order affirming the referee. It is from this order of ...