Opinion
September 11, 1997
Appeal from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board.
On June 26, 1995, claimant was warned that his failure to notify his supervisor when he would be late for work would result in his immediate termination. Apparently claimant disregarded this warning on two occasions without any consequences; however, on the third occasion when he failed to appear at a meeting, he was terminated. Substantial evidence supports the ruling of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. An employee's unauthorized absence from work has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct ( see, Matter of Valycheva [Hudacs], 189 A.D.2d 1051), as has the failure to follow established procedures regarding notification of absences ( see, Matter of Caravan [Hartnett], 179 A.D.2d 972). This is especially true in cases, such as the instant matter, where the claimant's absence is detrimental to the employer's interest ( see, Matter of Chapman [Hudacs], 190 A.D.2d 941). Claimant's argument that his employer waived the warning lacks substance since there is no proof that his supervisor knew of or condoned his two prior unauthorized absences.
White, J.P., Casey, Yesawich Jr., Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.