Court Opinion

ID: 9649743
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:07:52.552925+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:14.490013
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Doyle:
My dissent to the majority opinion is not with regard to the need for regulations dealing with tele*418phonic hearings. I would not reach that issue, however, because Employer completely foiled to meet its burden to establish the willful misconduct of Claimant.
Employer did not attend the referees hearing and the only evidence to establish Claimants absenteeism came by way of certain documents, palpably hearsay, made part of the record at the beginning of the hearing by the referee with the following explanation:
QR: All right there are certain documents that I want to make part of the record in this case, these will be admitted into evidence subject to objection. . . .The employer states that you were seperated [sic] permanently due to absenteeism and tardiness, warnings were given on several times. . . .Now were you discharged from your job, Mr. Hoover? (Emphasis added.)
AC: Yes.
The referee never asked, nor did Claimant interpose, any specific objection but it seems that the referee himself admitted the documents, “subject to objection” which is equivocal at best. Even assuming the evidence was admitted without objection, such evidence may support a finding of the Board only if it is corroborated by competent evidence in the record. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976). Claimant here not only did not corroborate Employers evidence, but also denied completely Employers accusations of excessive tardiness and absenteeism, as follows:
QR: Did they tell you why you were being discharged?
AC: Yes.
QR: What was the reason they gave you?
AC: They said I missed twenty two days, and their [sic] lying I have proof right here, pay stubbs.
*419QR: According to Mr. Beavers statement there’s seventeen days here in which you were either late or absent. . . . [Thereafter follows a recitation of the specific dates. ] Were you late or absent on those dates?
AC: No, not all of them no. way, the 27th, 28th and 29th a piece of steel fell on my arm I went to the hospital, the superintendent took me and the doctor said I couldn’t work all week.
But I was only off three days because I couldn’t any more so I went back to work. . . .
QR: How many days were you absent?
AC: Three days.
I would therefore reverse the Board and remand only for the computation' of benefits.