Summary
In Sorge v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 370 A.2d 818 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977), this Court stated that "[p]hysical attacks are clearly in disregard of the most basic standards of behavior which any employer may reasonabl[y] expect."
Summary of this case from Medlen v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
Argued February 4, 1977
March 16, 1977.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Burden of proof — Credibility — Abusive language — Physical attacks.
1. An employe is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, if the employer proves that the discharge of the employe was for wilful misconduct. [283-4]
2. In an unemployment compensation case review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to a determination of whether findings of the compensation authorities are supported by substantial evidence and to questions of law, including whether or not conduct of the employe constituted wilful misconduct. [284]
3. In an unemployment compensation case, questions of credibility and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts are for the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, not the reviewing court. [284-5]
4. Abusive language does not justify assault and battery. [285]
5. An employe discharged for assaulting a supervisor is properly found to have been guilty of wilful misconduct by violating behavior standards the employer could reasonably expect and is properly denied unemployment compensation benefits. [285]
Argued February 4, 1977, before Judges KRAMER, ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1007 C.D. 1976, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William Sorge, No. B-131561.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Charles A. Bressi, Jr., for appellant.
Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
William J. Sorge (claimant) appeals to this Court from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits. Sorge was disqualified from benefits for willful misconduct pursuant to 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), which provides in pertinent part:
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. . . .
The claimant was discharged from employment as a receiver with David Kahn, Inc. after an altercation with his supervisor. It is undisputed, and the referee specifically found, that Sorge "grabbed the supervisor by the throat with his hands." Sorge argues, however, that his actions were justified because they were provoked by accusations of the supervisor regarding Sorge's performance of his duties and because the supervisor had raised his hands to strike the claimant first.
In reviewing an unemployment compensation case, this Court is confined to a determination as to whether or not the findings of the compensation authorities are supported by substantial evidence and to questions of law, including the question of whether or not an employe's actions constitute willful misconduct. Sturniolo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 19 Pa. Commw. 475, 338 A.2d 794 (1975). And, in a willful misconduct case, the burden is upon the employer to prove that an employe deliberately violated the employer's rules or standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Grossman, 22 Pa. Commw. 550, 349 A.2d 779 (1976).
The record in this case contains contradictory testimony with regard to the supervisor's actions during the argument, although the claimant testified that the supervisor had struck him first. The Board determined, however, that Sorge "resented the critical remarks made by his supervisor and he grabbed the supervisor by the throat with his hands." It apparently did not consider the testimony of Sorge to the contrary to be credible. The Board, of course, is the ultimate fact-finder, and is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright, 21 Pa. Commw. 637, 347 A.2d 328 (1975). We can find no reason to disturb the Board's finding here.
Moreover, the law is clear that language, however abusive, does not justify an assault and battery. Beville v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 371, 327 A.2d 197 (1974); Thorne Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Super. 572, 76 A.2d 485 (1950). Physical attacks are clearly in disregard of the most basic standards of behavior which any employer may reasonably expect. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Vojtas, 23 Pa. Commw. 431, 351 A.2d 700 (1976).
The employer here has met his burden of proving willful misconduct and we, therefore, will affirm the decision of the Board which denied benefits to this claimant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of March, 1977, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby affirmed.