M.C. Horn v. UCBR, M.C. Horn v. UCBR

Mark C. Horn worked as a machine operator for J&L Precision from April 2012 until his discharge on March 9, 2016, for excessive tardiness and absences.
Employer documented chronic attendance problems, including 13 absences from Jan–Oct 2015, and issued a written warning on Oct 15, 2015 threatening further discipline.
Claimant filed for unemployment benefits; benefits were initially granted but Employer appealed. A Referee hearing was scheduled for April 20, 2016.
Notice of Hearing was mailed to Claimant’s last known address and was not returned as undeliverable; Claimant did not attend the April 20 hearing.
On remand Claimant testified he never received the Notice (offered a notarized statement from his girlfriend and some bank records); he also attributed absences to medical problems and transportation.
The Board found Claimant lacked good cause for missing the hearing (presuming mail receipt) and affirmed disqualification under Section 402(e) for willful misconduct based on chronic absenteeism and ignored warnings. Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Horn)	Defendant's Argument (Board/Employer)	Held
Whether Claimant had proper cause for missing the April 20 hearing (i.e., did not receive Notice)	Horn: He never received the Notice; offered his testimony and a notarized statement to rebut the presumption of mailed receipt.	Board: Notice was mailed to last known address and not returned; presumption of receipt applies and Claimant's evidence did not sufficiently rebut it.	Court: Presumption of receipt arose; although Board gave little weight to girlfriend's notarized statement, remand unnecessary because Claimant later had opportunity to fully litigate separation. Affirmed.
Whether Claimant's attendance constituted willful misconduct disqualifying him under 43 P.S. §802(e)	Horn: His final absence (sick on March 8) had good cause and therefore should not bar benefits.	Employer/Board: Chronic excessive absences, tardiness, and failure to improve after written warning show disregard of employer's standards; discharge for excessive absenteeism.	Court: Attendance record (excessive absences, warnings ignored) supports willful misconduct disqualification. Affirmed.

Volk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (mailing to last known address and non-return creates presumption of receipt)
Verdecchia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (presumption rebutted by evidence of third-party postal negligence)
Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employer may expect timely attendance; chronic absenteeism can be willful misconduct)
Vargas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 486 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (factors for attendance-related willful misconduct)
Morgan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 108 A.3d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility and weight of evidence are for the Board)
First Federal Savings Bank v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 957 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standards of review for Board decisions)