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.

Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

May 19, 2010

DONNA S. BRUCE, PETITIONER
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Per curiam.

ORDER

NOW, August 9, 2010, it is ordered that the above-captioned Memorandum Opinion, filed May 19, 2010, shall be designated OPINION and shall be REPORTED.

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge, HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge.

OPINION

JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER

Donna S. Bruce (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which reversed the decision of an Unemployment Compensation Referee (Referee) to grant benefits and held that Claimant committed disqualifying willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 The Board found Claimant ineligible for benefits because she violated Chapman Nissan's (Employer) no call/no show policy.

Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits after becoming separated from her employment with Employer. The Unemployment Compensation Service Center (Service Center) issued a determination finding Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b). Claimant appealed the Service Center's determination, and the Referee conducted an evidentiary hearing at which Claimant and two witnesses for Employer appeared and testified. Following the hearing, the Referee reversed the Service Center's determination and found Claimant was not ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e). Thereafter, Employer filed an appeal, and the Board twice remanded the matter to the Referee, acting as Hearing Officer for the Board, to learn the disposition of the criminal charges pending against Claimant. Claimant and Employer's witnesses again appeared and testified at the remand hearings.*fn2 Subsequently, the Board issued an opinion reversing the Referee and holding that Claimant was ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e). The Board made the following findings of fact:

1. The claimant was last employed as a full-time title clerk by Chapman Nissan from May 28, 2008, at a final rate of $14.25 per hour. Her last day of work was February 27, 2009.

2. The employer has a policy that two days of no call/no show results in termination of employment.

3. The claimant was aware of the employer's policy.

4. On March 2, 2009, the claimant called off work because it was snowing.

5. The claimant decided to go to the mall and took her two nephews.

6. When they left the mall, the claimant and her two nephews were arrested for shoplifting.

7. On March 3, 2009, the claimant had her aunt call the employer and report that her dog was sick and that she would be in to work on March 4, 2009.

8. That evening, the employer learned that the claimant was in jail.

9. The employer received a call the evening of March 4 from the claimant's aunt reporting that they were on their way to bail the claimant out of jail.

10. The claimant did not report to work or call off on March 5, 2009, or have anyone call for her.

11. The claimant did not report to work or call on March 6, 2009, or have anyone call for her.

12. The claimant was released from jail on March 6, 2009, at 10:00 p.m.

13. The claimant contacted the employer on March 7, 2009, and left a message. The claimant spoke to the ...


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.