Beck v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court –
unreported memorandum opinion – June 16, 2015
Absences alone, although
possibly grounds for discharge, do not necessarily constitute willful
misconduct. Vargas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 486
A.2d 1050, 1051 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). At least one of the following elements must
be present to justify the denial of benefits: (1) excessive absenteeism; (2)
failure to notify the employer in advance of the absence; (3) lack of good or
adequate cause for the absence; (4) disobedience of an employer’s policy; or
(5) disregard of warnings. Id. at 1052. “An employer has the right to
expect [its] employee[s] to maintain regular working hours and to comply with
office procedures.” Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Glenn,
350 A.2d 890, 892 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).
Once the employer meets its
burden, the burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove that he had good
cause for his actions. Guthrie, 738 A.2d at 522. The employee
establishes good cause where his actions are justified or reasonable under the
circumstances. Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
351 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 1976). Whether a claimant has good cause to violate a
work policy is a question of law subject to our review and should be viewed in
light
of all of the attendant
circumstances. Docherty v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
898 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
_______________
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
