Court Opinion

ID: 9698964
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:05:32.62644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.994312
License: Public Domain

*30Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I respectfully dissent.
The majority opinion, in its attempt to distinguish Beaver Falls v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 14, 441 A.2d 510 (1982), has erected, it seems to me, an artificial rule with regard to discriminatory employer discipline in unemployment compensation willful misconduct cases. To ignore unequal employer treatment, where the act or omission of the employee is such that it would constitute willful misconduct without regard to an employer-created rule, seems to me to violate the teaching of our Supreme Court in Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867, 868 (1975).
A determination of whether an employee has engaged in willful misconduct can . . . only be made by considering what standard of conduct an employer reasonably requires. Standards expected by one employer may of course not be the standards of another employer. Willful misconduct cannot therefore be considered in a vacuum. It must be considered in relation to the particular employees and to the reasonable standards expected by a particular employer.
Id. at 442-43, 336 A.2d at 868. And, inasmuch as the employees in Woodson were discharged for alleged excessive absenteeism and tardiness and Woodson does not make mention of any employer rule, I believe that the majority’s holding in the instant case is contrary to that of the Supreme Court in Woodson and our own decision in Beaver Falls.
I do not believe, however, that we may reverse the administrative denial of benefits at this juncture, for my review of the record indicates that the Unemployment Compensation Review Board (Board) failed to address *31Smiths allegations of disparate treatment in its findings of fact or in the discussion section of its adjudication. I believe, therefore, that, under the rule of Pages Department Store v. Velardi, 464 Pa. 276, 346 A.2d 556 (1975), we must remand this matter to the Board so that it may properly perform its full fact-finding duty.