Opinion
November 17, 1960.
December 14, 1960.
Unemployment Compensation — Willful misconduct — Leaving premises of employer during working hours — Drinking — Unemployment Compensation Law.
In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, a pot washer, was discharged, after numerous prior warnings, for leaving his employer's premises during working hours in order to go to a nearby barroom, and that on the day of his discharge he was gone from his work for one hour and did not know his employer on his return, it was Held that claimant's discharge was due to willful misconduct in violation of § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Before RHODES, P.J., WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ. (GUNTHER, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 181, April T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-56284, in re claim of Alex Krasopsky. Decision affirmed.
Stanley V. Ostrow, with him Crone Crone, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 17, 1960.
This is an unemployment compensation appeal in which the claimant, Alex Krasopsky, was denied benefits by the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, on the ground that his discharge was due to willful misconduct in violation of § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
The claimant was last employed by the Carlton Hotel Corporation, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as a pot washer. His last day of work was September 24, 1959, when he was discharged for leaving his employer's premises during working hours in order to go to a nearby barroom. The record is clear that he had been warned numerous times about leaving his work and drinking. On the day of his discharge he was gone from his work for one hour and did not know his employer on his return. Such conduct was clearly a breach of his duties and obligations to his employer, inimical to his employer's best interests and constitutes willful misconduct under the Act. Detterer Unemployment Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Super. 291, 77 A.2d 886 (1951); Weimer Unemployment Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 348, 107 A.2d 607 (1954).
Decision affirmed.