Summary
In Beville v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 371, 327 A.2d 197 (1974), we held that a deliberate assault upon a fellow worker on the employer's premises, even by an employee with an otherwise satisfactory work record (as apparently claimant's is here), clearly falls within the definition of willful misconduct.
Summary of this case from Wisniewski v. CommonwealthOpinion
Argued September 11, 1974
October 24, 1974.
Unemployment compensation — Words and phrases — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P. L. (1937) 2897 — Single act of misconduct — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Findings of fact — Sufficient evidence — Credibility — Evidentiary weight.
1. Wilful misconduct, such as to disqualify a discharged employe from receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P. L. (1937) 2897, is the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interest, the deliberate violation of rules, the disregard of behavior standards an employer can rightfully expect or negligence such as manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests or the employe's obligations. [372]
2. Evidence of a single act of misconduct, if sufficiently serious, is adequate to support a decision denying unemployment compensation benefits to an employe discharged for such misconduct. [373]
3. In an unemployment compensation case review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to questions of law and a determination of whether the findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are supported by the evidence, leaving questions of credibility and evidentiary weight to the Board. [373]
Argued September 11, 1974, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., WILKINSON, JR., and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1679 C.D. 1973, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Appeal of Richard P. Beville, No. B-119795.
Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Harry A. Dower, with him Boyd G. Hixson, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
This unemployment compensation appeal is a companion to our opinion in Beville v. State Civil Service Commission, 15 Pa. Commw. 341, 327 A.2d 196 (No. 1680 C.D. 1973, filed October 24, 1974), filed simultaneously herewith. The facts set forth in our opinion in that case, in which we held that the appellant's discharge from his civil service position with the State Liquor Control Board for assaulting another employe was for just cause.
The only question here is whether the appellant's discharge was for wilful misconduct rendering him ineligible for benefits. Section 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
As we recently reiterated in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973), wilful misconduct has been judicially defined as (1) the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interest, (2) the deliberate violation of rules, (3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employe, or (4) negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests or the employe's duties and obligations. A deliberate assault upon another on the employer's premises clearly falls within two of those categories.
We are mindful of Mr. Beville's long and exemplary record of service to the Board. However, a single act of misconduct, if sufficiently serious, will justify a denial of benefits. Fritsche Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 574, 176 A.2d 186 (1961).
Our review is limited to questions of law and a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are for the Board. We discern no error of law and we find ample support for the findings upon which the decision of the administrative agency was based.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of October, 1974, it is ordered that the appeal of Richard P. Beville from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review be and it hereby is dismissed.