IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
  Gina Brunori, 
  : 
  Petitioner 
  : : 
  v. 
  : 
  No. 1296 C.D. 2001 
  : 
  Submitted: November 16, 2001 
  Unemployment Compensation 
  : 
  Board of Review, 
  : 
  Respondent 
  : 
  BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, President Judge 
  HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
  HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge 
  OPINION NOT REPORTED 
  MEMORANDUM OPINION 
  BY SENIOR JUDGE McCLOSKEY 
  FILED: January 9, 2002 

  Gina  Brunori (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the 
  Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), reversing the decision of 
  a referee and concluding that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment 
  compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment 
  Compensation Law (UC Law). 

    We affirm. 

  Claimant was employed as a telephone salesperson for Harcourt 
  Learning Direct (Employer).  Claimant began working for Employer in September 
  of 1998 and her last day of work was January 4, 2001.  Employer's facility is
  secured by the Kronos identification badge swiping system.  Claimant was made 
  aware of this system at her orientation and the Kronos system policy is included in 
  the employee handbook, which Claimant acknowledged that she received and 
  reviewed.  Under the Kronos system policy, all employees must swipe an exterior 
  Kronos receptacle to gain access to Employer's facility and then must swipe an 
  interior receptacle to record start and finish times as well as lunch/dinner breaks. 
  Claimant was not following the policy with regard to lunch breaks.  In 
  accordance with company policy, Claimant was first orally warned and later 
  provided with two written warnings regarding her failure to swipe in and out for 
  lunch.  Claimant was then placed on a thirty-day probationary period, which she 
  completed without incident.  Afterward, however, Claimant had some attendance 
  problems. 

  Ultimately, by memorandum dated December 22, 2000, Employer 
  provided Claimant with a final notice for immediate termination. 
  This final notice stated, in pertinent part, that "any failure to follow 
  any procedure regarding attendance (to include: being at workstation and logged 
  on at beginning of shift, adhering to scheduled break and lunch, proper use of ID 
  Badge for KRONOS system) will lead to immediate termination."  (Record at Item 
  No. 3).  Despite this final notice, Claimant failed to swipe in and out for lunch on 
  either January 2, 2001, or January 3, 2001. 

   Additionally, Claimant took extended breaks on these days. 

    Claimant was thereafter discharged on January 4, 2001, for 
  violation of Employer's time and attendance policy. 
  Claimant then filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits 
  with her local job center.  The local job center denied Claimant benefits, 
  concluding that Claimant was ineligible for the same pursuant to Section 402(e) of 
  the UC Law. 

    Claimant appealed and the case was assigned to an unemployment 
  compensation referee.  The referee conducted a hearing on February 28, 2001, and 
  later issued a decision reversing the determination of the local job center and 
  awarding Claimant benefits. 

    The referee concluded that Claimant had provided 
  credible testimony that her Kronos identification badge was not working properly 
  on the days in question and that she had difficulty in the past of which she made 
  Employer aware. 
                                          
  Employer appealed to the Board and the Board reversed the referee's 
  decision.  In rendering its decision, the Board accepted the testimony presented by 
  Employer's witnesses as credible.  Based upon this testimony, the Board found that 
  Employer had a time and attendance policy, that Claimant was aware of the policy 
  and that she was on a final warning for violating the same.  The Board concluded, 
  however, that Claimant continued to violate this policy and that Claimant did not 
  establish good cause for such violations.  Hence, the Board concluded that 
  Claimant's actions rose to the level of willful misconduct, rendering her ineligible 
  for benefits.  Claimant now appeals to this Court. 

  On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred by failing to 
  consider her testimony, which demonstrated that her actions were reasonable under 
  the circumstances and did not rise to the level of willful misconduct. 

    In other  words, Claimant argues that the Board's decision was not supported by substantial 
  evidence.  We disagree. 
                                          
   Ms. Williams indicated that according to a report generated by the Kronos system, 
  Claimant's identification badge did work at the beginning and end of her shift on these dates. 
  that she never swiped in and out for lunch her entire time with Employer. 
  Regarding her tardiness, Claimant indicated that there was quite some distance 
  between her workstation, the lunchroom and the smoke area. 

   We agree with the 
  Board that such reasons do not constitute good cause for Claimant's violation of 
  Employer's time and attendance policy.  Further, we cannot say that the Board's 
  decision was not supported by substantial evidence. 

  Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed. 

  JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge