The Commonwealth Court has ruled that a man’s history of tardiness and missing work were enough to show willful misconduct and deny the man unemployment benefits despite the fact that his final absence the one that got him fired was found to have been justified.
Ruling 5-2, the en banc panel decided the claimant’s 19 unexcused absences from his vehicle detailer job in a seven-month period fell below the standard his employer could expect and were adverse to the employer’s interest of getting work done in a timely fashion. Therefore, the employer had met its burden of showing willful misconduct.
