Opinion
Argued December 4, 1979
January 8, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Unexcused absences — Extenuating circumstances — Dissatisfaction with working conditions.
1. An employe discharged for wilful misconduct is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, and whether certain conduct rises to the level of wilful misconduct is a question of law subject to judicial review. [340]
2. Intentional unexcused absence from work in disregard of an employer's absenteeism policy and expected behavior standards is properly held to constitute wilful misconduct precluding the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by an employe discharged as a result of such conduct. [341]
3. In order to assert successfully that an unauthorized absence from work was justified because of extenuating circumstances and did not constitute wilful misconduct precluding receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by the employe when discharged as a result of such conduct, the employe must have notified her employer of such circumstances and of the intended absence. [341]
4. Dissatisfaction with working conditions centering around differences with a supervisor is not a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily terminating employment such that the employe may retain eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. [341]
Argued December 4, 1979, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., BLATT and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1277 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Minerva E. Maiers, No. B-144373.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed as modified. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Minerva E. Maiers, for herself, petitioner.
Gary J. Marini, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Appellant (claimant) was last employed by appellee (hospital) as a clerk-typist for approximately ten years. Her last day of work was July 12, 1976, at which time she became involved in an altercation with her supervisor. Immediately following the argument, claimant advised the hospital's director of nursing that claimant was no longer willing to work under the direction of the supervisor with whom she had argued. Claimant then walked off the job and failed to report to work until her subsequent discharge.
On July 26, 1976, claimant received a letter dated July 22, 1976, informing her that she had been discharged effective July 23, 1976. One stated reason for the discharge was her unauthorized absence from duty in violation of an employer's rule providing that an employee's unauthorized absence for a time period in excess of five days constitutes grounds for immediate discharge.
Claimant applied for unemployment benefits on July 25, 1976, but her application was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security on the basis of its determination that claimant had voluntarily quit without cause of necessitous and compelling nature. Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1). Claimant appealed and a hearing was held on January 24, 1977, after which an order was entered affirming the denial of benefits and modifying the previous determination on the basis of Section 402(e) of the Law for willful misconduct consisting of extended absence from work without authorization. Claimant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, whose order of April 25, 1977, affirmed the referee's decision. From that order claimant appeals to this Court.
Now Office of Employment Security. See 9 Pa. B. 2879 (1979).
Whether an employee's action leading to his dismissal rises to the level of willful misconduct is a question of law subject to our review. Donahue v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commw. 139, 400 A.2d 251 (1979). We have consistently held that an employee's intentional unexcused absence from work in violation of the employer's absenteeism policy constitutes willful misconduct. Ceresa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa. Commw. 1, 404 A.2d 455 (1979). Such behavior is in deliberate disregard of the standards of behavior an employer can rightfully expect from an employee. Donahue, supra.
Claimant argues that her absence was justifiable and that she quit working for a compelling reason. If claimant's absence from work was due to extenuating circumstances other than her refusal to work with her supervisor, claimant did not sufficiently notify her employer of these circumstances. Dissatisfaction with working conditions centering around differences with a supervisor is not a necessary and compelling cause for voluntarily terminating employment. Schumacher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commw. 360, 388 A.2d 1104 (1978).
At oral argument claimant, arguing pro se, seemed to change her position to agree that she was dismissed but argued her dismissal was not properly based on willful misconduct.
We find substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that claimant's actions constituted willful misconduct in violation of her employer's rules resulting in her dismissal.
Accordingly, we will enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, January 8, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-144373, dated April 25, 1977, is affirmed and benefits are denied.
This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSALLE.