Jones v. UCBR - Cmwlth. Court - December 31, 2008 - unpublished memorandum decision
http://origin-www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1097CD08_12-31-08.pdf
Claimant was terminated for several alleged incidents of no-call/no-show.
inconsistent Board findings - The court found that "[b]ecause the Board's findings are inconsistent with the evidence, this matter must be remanded for clarification...and a new decision."
no finding on employer compliance with its own disciplinary policy - Claimant argued that the employer did not comply with its own disciplinary policy and that therefore "she should be allowed to return to work for Employer to comply with the policy." The court said that "[w]here an employer promulgates a specific disciplinary system, a discharge under that system may not be deemed to be for willful misconduct if the employer fails to follow the specified process. PMA Reinsurance Corp. v. UCBR, 558 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
The Board made no findings on whether Employer followed its policy by giving warnings to Claimant after the alleged occurrences of her no calls/no shows, and the Board did not mention the issue in its decision. This issue therefore must be addressed upon remand of this matter. Accordingly, the Board's order is vacated and this matter is remanded to the Board for a clarification of its inconsistent findings of fact and for additional fact finding, if necessary, as to whether Employer complied with its written policy requiring that it provide employees with verbal and written warnings in the case of no call/no show occurrences."
