86 Pa. Commw. 80 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Claimant, Eugene B. Moore, Jr., appeals from a referee’s decision, affirmed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Beview (Board), which declared Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. The denial of benefits was based on Claimant’s willful misconduct;
Claimant returned to work after completing the program but did. not improve his attendance record. Claimant missed six days for personal reasons
This Court’s scope of review where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed before the Board, is to determine whether an error of law was committed and whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. James v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 230, 429 A.2d 782 (1981).
Each of the factual findings made below is fully supported by the record, leaving only the question of whether or not Claimant’s conduct rose to the level of willful misconduct. We believe that it did.
Following a history of attendance problems, Claimant was warned on more than one occasion that further absenteeism would result in his termination. Not only did Claimant extend his poor attendance record, but Claimant failed to report many of his sub
Order
And Now, November 9, 1984, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, B-213945, is affirmed.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802 (e), provides that a claimant shall be ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if his dismissal resulted from his willful misconduct.
Apparently, “stock selector” refers to raw materials selection rather than corporate stock selection.
Claimant’s personal problems were in the nature of his wife undergoing a high-risk pregnancy which, at times, required his presence at home. N.T. p. 6.