Summary
In Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commw. 304, 331 A.2d 217 (1975), we upheld a denial of benefits where the employee came to a meeting with his supervisors to discuss a previous job-related dispute but refused to remain at the meeting "because he resented the manner in which the general foreman told him to have a seat."
Summary of this case from Dinkins v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
Argued December 6, 1974
January 30, 1975.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Scope of appellate review — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Credibility — Conflicting evidence — Insubordination.
1. An employe discharged for wilful misconduct connected with his employment is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [306-7]
2. In an unemployment compensation case review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the absence of fraud or an error of law is to determine whether the findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are supported by substantial evidence, leaving to the Board questions of credibility and the resolution of conflicts in the testimony. [307]
3. In an unemployment compensation case findings of a referee supported by substantial evidence and adopted by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are binding upon a reviewing court. [307]
4. An employe is discharged for wilful misconduct and properly found to be ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when his discharge for insubordination was a result of and followed an argument with a supervisor and a subsequent refusal to obey an order to remain in his foreman's office for a discussion of the matter. [307]
Argued December 6, 1974, before Judges KRAMER, WILKINSON, JR., and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 268 C.D. 1974, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re; Claim of Walter Smith, No. B-120520.
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
Walter Smith, appellant, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Walter Smith (Smith) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated February 1, 1974, which affirmed a decision by the referee denying benefits to Smith.
Smith was employed as a relief man by Nabisco, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for seven years until he was discharged on January 25, 1973. Smith filed an application for unemployment compensation on February 18, 1973, but the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) denied benefits on March 12, 1973. Smith appealed and, following a hearing, the referee, in a decision dated May 18, 1973, affirmed the Bureau's decision. The referee's decision included the following findings of fact: "1. Claimant was last employed by Nabisco Company for 7 years as a reliefman at $4.60 an hour and his last day of work was January 25, 1973. 2. On claimant's last day of work he became involved in an argument with a supervisor concerning the manner in which he was performing his job. 3. As a result of this confrontation, claimant was ordered to report to the general foreman's office for a discussion of the issues and claimant's actions. 4. Claimant reported to the office but refused to remain in the general foreman's office because he resented the manner in which the general foreman told him to have a seat. There was nothing profane or abusive in the manner in which claimant was told to have a seat. 5. Claimant was suspended and the suspension was later converted to a discharge for insubordination for refusing to follow his supervisor's orders."
A grievance filed by Smith through his union was ultimately taken to arbitration and Smith was reinstated as of June 1, 1973, with full seniority but without allowance for back pay.
The referee concluded that Smith was discharged for willful misconduct and that, therefore, he was not eligible for benefits under 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). Smith appealed, and the Board, in an adjudication dated February 1, 1974, adopted the referee's findings and conclusions, and affirmed the referee's decision. Smith now appeals to this Court arguing that the referee's finding No. 4, quoted above, is not supported by substantial evidence.
Section 402(e) reads as follows: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week — (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act. . . ."
Our scope of review in this type of case, absent fraud or error of law, is to determine if the findings of the Board are supported by substantial evidence. Questions of credibility and the resolution of conflicts in the testimony are for the Board. See Stalc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commw. 131, 318 A.2d 398 (1974).
We have carefully reviewed the record in this case, and we hold that there is substantial evidence in this record to support all of the referee's findings of fact. The referee's findings were adopted by the Board, and they are binding on this Court. See Chambers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commw. 317, 318 A.2d 422 (1974). We also hold that the referee did not err when he concluded that Smith's behavior was willful misconduct which made him ineligible to receive benefits. See Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973). In accordance with the above, we therefore
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 1975, the order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated February 1, 1974, disallowing benefits to Walter Smith, is hereby affirmed.