Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of Claim of Shaun Brady, No. B-253203.
Lee W. Jackson, Kirschner, Walters & Willig, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, 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 Senior Judge Blatt.
[ 118 Pa. Commw. Page 69]
Shaun Brady (petitioner) petitions for our review of the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the denial of benefits by the
[ 118 Pa. Commw. Page 70]
referee pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct). We will reverse.
The petitioner was employed by the City of Philadelphia, Department of Revenue (employer), as a revenue examiner from August 16, 1981 to February 21, 1986. On February 4, 1986, he called in to work at 11:33 a.m. to indicate that he was sick and would not be coming in that day. He later reported to work at approximately 12:30 p.m. requesting leave to go to the Municipal Medical Dispensary. Because he had been scheduled to begin work at 8:30 a.m. on that day, his call violated the employer's rule that he must call in no later than one hour after he is scheduled to begin work. As a direct result of this incident, he was suspended and later discharged.
The petitioner applied for unemployment compensation benefits on March 30, 1986, which were granted by the Office of Employment Security. The employer appealed this decision to the referee who reversed and denied benefits. The petitioner then appealed to the Board, which made more explicit findings of fact based on the record from the referee's hearing and then affirmed the referee.
The Board's findings of fact most relevant to this appeal are as follows:
2. Claimant was discharged from his employment because of excessive absenteeism without proper notification to the employer.
3. The claimant had been warned many times about his continuing failure to properly report off from work and his absenteeism. The claimant had been previously ...