Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): permission to be absent, she unilaterally proclaimed her intention to take a vacation the week of August 20, 1979. The claimant never received either the explicit or implicit permission of her employer to be absent. The floor lady said nothing a reasonable person could construe as permission to be absent. Id. 429 A.2d at 1219 (emphasis added). The Fritzo court relied on the fact that “the claimant never requested the employer’s permission to be absent from work” and therefore wilfully disregarded the employer’s interest in upholding the unemployment compensation board’s denial of unemployment insurance benefits due to wilful misconduct related to work. Id. at 1217; see also Grispino v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 51, 472 A.2d 288 (1984) (<HOLDING>); Dulgerian v. Commonwealth Unemployment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits (B) holding that isolated incident in which claimant raised voice at his supervisor in private office but in front of two other employees and possibly used profanity did not constitute misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment compensation benefits (C) holding that leaving work early without permission after having been previously warned constitutes misconduct (D) holding that single incident of leaving work early without receiving permission from supervisor to address problem of impending termination of electrical service to his home by employee on probation due to poor attendance record constituted willful misconduct related to work justifying denial of unemployment insurance benefits (E) holding that single incident of failing to return to work after doctors visit without permission due to employees professed anxiety after being informed she may have skin cancer constituted willful misconduct related to work justifying denial of unemployment insurance benefits
Output (English): holding that an isolated incident in which an employee used profanity in a telephone conversation with her supervisor did not constitute misconduct sufficient to cut off unemployment benefits