Opinion
November 9, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Assault — Fighting — Good cause — Remand.
1. An employe discharged for fighting at work is properly found to have been guilty of wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of unemployment compensation benefits, and the failure of a lower tribunal to make a specific finding that good cause existed for such conduct does not require remand when nothing in the record would support a finding that such conduct was justifiable under any circumstances. [627]
Submitted on briefs September 16, 1982, to Judges ROGERS, MacPHAIL and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1707 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert J. Clark, No. B-195946.
Application with the Office 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.
Kathleen Wasek, for petitioner.
Charles D. Donahue, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
The Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was discharged from his employment for engaging in a fight with another employee on their Employer's premises and was denied unemployment compensation benefits on the ground of his willful misconduct.
Robert J. Clark.
Lab Procedures, Inc.
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).
This Court has previously stated
[P]articipation in a fight with the knowledge that such activity is contrary to company policy is intentional misconduct, and in deliberate violation of the employer's rules. Even without a stated policy, this type of conduct is in total disregard of the employer's interest and of the most basic standards of behavior which an employer demands. (Emphasis in original.)
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Vojtas, 23 Pa. Commw. 431, 433, 351 A.2d 700, 702 (1976).
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's finding in the instant case that Claimant struck another employee during the course of a heated argument. He also admits that he was aware of his Employer's rule against fighting at work.
Nonetheless, Claimant alleges he feared for his safety and acted in self defense. This he contends, was good cause and since the Board made no specific finding on the issue of good cause, a remand should be ordered. We disagree.
In Boyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commw. 191, 415 A.2d 425 (1980), we held that where there is nothing in the record to indicate that claimant's actions were reasonable or justifiable under any circumstances, the Board does not err where it concludes that a claimant's conduct constitutes willful misconduct, even though the Board does not set forth specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issue of good cause. In the instant case, if Claimant truly feared for his safety, he could have retreated from the altercation but he did not; instead, he advanced toward the other party. Here, as in Boyer, the Claimant's actions were not reasonable or justifiable under any circumstances; hence, it was unnecessary for the Board to address the issue of good cause. Boyer.
Order affirmed.
ORDER
It is ordered that the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, denying benefits to Robert J. Clark, dated June 9, 1981, and numbered B-195946 is hereby affirmed.