Opinion by
Claimant, John Szostek, appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review *9 (Board) which affirmed the referees denial of benefits to Claimant pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) 1 . We affirm the decision of the Board.
The questiоns to be determined by this Court are whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence of record; whether Claimants admission оf drug use to Employers medical director was admissible; and whether Claimants conduct constitutes willful misconduct. Claimant was last employed аs a meter reader for the Philadelphia Gas Works, having his last day of work on March 18, 1987, the date of discharge. Employer terminated Claimаnt after he admitted to smoking marijuana'subsequent to his return to work from a drug rehabilitation leave of absence. The Board found that Claimаnt was admitted into a drug rehabilitation program on December 31, 1986 suffering from a drug addiction. On February 9, 1987 Claimant was returned to work from rehabilitatiоn upon the condition that he remain drug-free and submit to random drug screenings by Employers medical director. On March 11, 1987, Claimant was given a random drug screening, and subsequent thereto, after discussion of the test results, Claimant admitted to the medical director that he had smoked marijuanа. Claimant was discharged on March 18, 1987 for violating the condition that he remain drug-free upon his return to work. The Board further found that Claimant had failed to establish justification for his conduct and concluded that Claimants behavior rose to the level of willful misconduct rendering him ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e).
In reviewing Claimants appeal, the Boards decision will be affirmed unless this Court finds that it is in vio
*10
lation of Claimants constitutiоnal rights; is not in accordance with the law; or that any necessary findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence of reсord.
Estate of McGovern v. State Employees’ Retirement Board,
The question of whether conduct rises to the level of willful misconduсt is a question of law to be determined by this Court.
Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
*11 Claimant agreed upon his return to work that he would remain drug-free and submit to random drug testing by the mediсal director. He now argues on appeal that since Employer did not define what it meant by remaining drug-free, no basis exists to conсlude that Claimant violated Employers condition of re-employment. This argument is without merit and warrants little discussion in light of the fact that the cоnditions of re-employment were clearly set forth by the Employer. Claimants submission to the condition of random drug testing is sufficient to infer Claimants understanding that he had to abstain from any drug use, i.e., to remain drug-free.
Employer testified that one of the purposes behind its re-employment condition was to avert additional expense involved in sponsoring Claimant for further drug rehabilitation, clearly a reasonable expectation under thе circumstances. Claimants conduct therefore falls within the definition of willful misconduct as it represents a deliberate violation of an Employer rule as well as a disregard of standards of behavior which Employer had a right to expect of his employee previously granted leave of absence to participate in drug rehabilitation financed in part by Employer.
Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
Claimants argument that his admission of drug use to Employers medical director is inadmissible must also be rejected. Claimant was requirеd to submit to ran
*12
dom drug testing with Employers representative and knew or should have known that results of his tests would be disclosed to Employer. The drug testing and any conversations incident thereto did not occur in a privileged patient-physician relationship as contended by Claimant. Employers medical director merely conducted and monitored random drug testing of Claimant and reported same to Employer. Moreover, Claimant consented to the testing as a condition of his re-employment with Employer..
See Shaw v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
Counsel for Claimant argues in his brief that Claimant is not disqualified from receiving benefits because of his off-the-job use of marijuana and further that no evidence was presented that Claimants marijuana use affected his job performance, citing
Hammond v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
Accordingly, the Boards decision is affirmed by this Court.
Order
And Now, this 5th day of May, 1988, the decision of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review issued July 13, 1987 is hereby affirmed.
Notes
Aсt of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).
See, generally, 42 Pa. C. S. §5929, which provides, inter alia: “No physician shall be allowed, in any civil matter, to disclose any information which he acquired in attending the patient in a professional capacity .... which shall tend to blacken the character of the patient, without consent of said patient . . .” (Emphasis added.)