Summary
In Burke v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 199 Pa. Super. 565, 186 A.2d 425, although a denial of benefits was upheld for claimant's refusal to work during the Christmas holidays, the court took great care to point out that the employer had fairly attempted to equalize days off between his employees and the employee failed to offer any explanation for the decision not to appear on the days assigned.
Summary of this case from Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewOpinion
November 14, 1962.
December 12, 1962.
Unemployment Compensation — Wilful misconduct — Refusal to perform short period of holiday work — Evidence — Findings of fact — Appellate review.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, it was Held, in the circumstances, that claimant's refusal to comply with her employer's reasonable request that she perform a short period of holiday work constituted wilful misconduct.
2. In unemployment compensation cases, the findings of the board as to the facts, if supported by the evidence, are binding on appeal.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (WOODSIDE, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 279, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-72040, in re claim of Irene Burke. Decision affirmed.
Irene Burke, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 14, 1962.
Irene Burke was last employed as a sales clerk by Rosen's Drug Store, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Her final day of work was December 30, 1961. Her application for benefits was disallowed by the Referee and the Board of Review on the ground that her unemployment was due to her discharge for wilful misconduct connected with her work under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. 802(e). This appeal followed.
The Board of Review made, inter alia, the following findings of fact: "2. The claimant did not work on the Christmas holiday and the employer, in order to equalize days off for holidays among all his employes, changed claimant's work schedule so that she was to work on New Year's Eve. 3. The claimant refused to accept the change in assignment, advising the employer she would not work as scheduled, whereupon she was dismissed". The findings of the Board as to the facts, if supported by the evidence, are binding on appeal: Grasavage Unemployment Compensation Case, 199 Pa. Super. 396, 186 A.2d 46. Our examination of this record discloses that the controlling findings are fully supported by the evidence. Claimant's refusal to comply with her employer's reasonable request that she perform a short period of holiday work constitutes wilful misconduct. Cf. Davis Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Super. 116, 144 A.2d 452; Armstrong Unemployment Compensation Case, 179 Pa. Super. 488, 118 A.2d 217; Morgan Unemployment Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 297, 106 A.2d 618.
Decision affirmed.