DocketNumber: Appeal, No. 2387 C.D. 1980
Citation Numbers: 61 Pa. Commw. 610
Judges: Blatt, MacPhail, Rogers
Filed Date: 9/16/1981
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 6/24/2022
George Logan (Claimant) was last employed by Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company (Employer). His last day of work was February 21, 1980. He was absent from work due to illness from February 22, 1980 until March 7, 1980, a period of 15 consecutive days. He failed to notify the Employer of the reason for his absence but did present two medical certificates to the Employer when he returned to work on March 7. Employer refused to accept the medical certificates and discharged Claimant for failure to notify the Personnel Office of the reason for his absence within one week of the last day worked in accord with company policy as expressed in a labor-management agreement. Claimant had been warned about absenteeism in 1979.
Employer does not contest that Claimant’s absence from work was due to illness. Claimant admits he did not notify Employer of the reason for his absence. The Board found from competent evidence
Our law is .clear. Failure to report an absence caused by illness in the manner prescribed by Employer’s policy constitutes willful misconduct. Unemployment Board of Review v. Leonhart, Jr., 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 196, 353 A.2d 925 (1976).
Order affirmed.
And Now, this 16th day of September, 1981 Decision No. B-187624 of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated September 10, 1980, denying unemployment compensation benefits to George Logan is hereby affirmed.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Section 402(e) reads in pertinent part as follows:
.An Employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—
(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work. ...
43 P.S. §802 (e).
The record shows that Claimant admitted receiving a copy of the labor-management agreement and that Employer’s representative testified that Claimant was informed of the Employer’s rules regarding absences at his orientation and at the time of starting his employment.