An employer
has the right to expect that its employees will attend work when they are
scheduled, that they will be on time, and that they will not leave work early
without permission. Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
446 A.2d 330, 333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). As a result, excessive absenteeism
and tardiness may constitute willful misconduct as a disregard of the standards
that an employer has a right to expect of its employees. Id.; American
Process Lettering, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 412
A.2d 1123, 1125 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980); Crilly v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review, 397 A.2d 40, 41 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
Although an advance warning is not a precondition or
prerequisite to support a discharge for willful misconduct, a prior warning is
relevant in that it reflects the employee’s attitude toward his employment and
adds to the willfulness of the misconduct. American Process Lettering, Inc.,
412 A.2d at 1125-26.
However, even where a history of absenteeism is present, a
claimant is entitled to receive compensation benefits where the final absence
which precipitated his or her discharge was based on good cause. See Tritex
Sportswear, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 315 A.2d
322, 324 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). But cf. Grand Sport Auto Body, 55 A.3d at
192-94 (holding that a claimant’s extensive absenteeism and history of
tardiness constituted willful misconduct even if the claimant’s final absence before
discharge was justified).
In
this case, the court found that all of claimant's absences, including the last
one, were for good cause.
_________________________________________________
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial Opinions.
