37 Pa. Commw. 255 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1978
Opinion by
Ronald J. Conrad, Sr. (Claimant) appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee’s denial of benefits.
Claimant was last employed by Bergman’s Dairy, Inc. (Employer). The referee found as fact that:
3. After being refused help with the route on September 2, 1976, claimant reported off sick and went home. His son called the employer on September 3, 1976, stating his father was sick and he did not know when he would be back.
4. When claimant failed to report to work by September 9, 1976, his employment was terminated by his employer.
5. Claimant presented no medical evidence to substantiate his claim of illness and inability to work during the period from September 2, to September 9, 1976.
Based upon these findings, the referee concluded Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Upon appeal to the Board, the referee’s decision was upheld. We affirm.
Section 402(e) of the Act provides, in part, that:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—
(e) In which his unemployment is due to discharge or temporary suspension from work for . willful misconduct connected with his work. . . .
Though not statutorily defined, willful misconduct as that term is used in Section 402(e) of the Act has
With respect to Employer’s policy regarding absenteeism, the referee asked an Employer representative the following:
Q Are the workers advised in advance as to what their responsibility is?
A Oh, yes.
Q If a person is [sic] just off one day due to illness, if it was [sic] necessary for them to be off a second day, are they required to report off?
A Yes. Because there is no way the man can make out a work schedule unless he knows.
Though this representative also indicated that it was unnecessary for an employee to report off daily in situations of major illnesses, it is clear from the record that neither Claimant nor anyone on his behalf informed Employer of the precise nature of Claimant’s illness. Nor was Employer advised as to the approximate length of time during which Claimant
Accordingly, we
Order
And Now, this 15th day of August, 1978, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.