Opinion
Argued June 4, 1981
September 14, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review — Inconsistent findings — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Credibility — Conflicting evidence — Unauthorized removal or copying of material of employer.
1. An employe is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, when the employer proves that he was discharged for wilful misconduct which is the wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of rules, a disregard of expected behavior standards or negligence manifesting evil design, wrongful intent or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or the employe's obligations. [571]
2. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof prevailed below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether findings of fact are consistent with each other and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence leaving to the factfinder questions of credibility and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts. [570]
3. An employe of a firm involved in the development of industrial processes, equipment and tools is properly found to have been guilty of wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of unemployment compensation benefits when discharged as a result of such conduct when he removes, reproduces and photographs materials of the employer without permission, jeopardizing the employer's operations. [570-1]
Argued June 4, 1981, before Judges ROGERS, BLATT and PALLADINO, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1203 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Frederick A. Bignell, No. B-183206.
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.
John E. Rydesky, P.C., with him Russell F. D'Aiello, Jr., for petitioner.
Karen Durkin, Associate Counsel, with her Steven R. Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Counsel, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.
The petitioner, Frederick A. Bignell, has appealed an April 30, 1978 decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying him benefits on the basis that his discharge was a result of his own willful misconduct.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 48 P. S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) of the Act, the controlling law in this case, dictates that a claimant is ineligible for compensation for any week in which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work.
The petitioner was formerly employed as an engineer by Emporium Specialties, Inc. (employer) until his discharge on April 25, 1978. His employer charged him with copying and removing from the premises blueprints of the employer's machines, and for taking sixty to eighty photographs of patented equipment located in the employer's plant, all without permission of his superiors.
In an unemployment compensation case where the employee is denied benefits due to a discharge resulting from willful misconduct, the burden of proof is upon the employer. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, ___ Pa. Commonwealth Ct. ___, 426 A.2d 757 (1981); Glasser v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa. Commw. 29, 404 A.2d 768 (1979). And the scope of our review "is limited to a determination of whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence." Penn Photomounts, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa. Commw. 407, 417 A.2d 1311 (1980); see Dell Watts, Jr. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 279, 410 A.2d 976 (1980). Questions of credibility and evidentiary weight are left to the Board, and the prevailing party below has the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence. Recker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 30 Pa. Commw. 327, 373 A.2d 795 (1977); see also Barrett v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 30 Pa. Commw. 429, 373 A.2d 1183 (1977). In addition, we are bound by findings of fact supported by substantial evidence even though contrary evidence was introduced below. Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commw. 304, 387 A.2d 998 (1978). Willful misconduct has not been statutorily defined, but we have described it in general terms as an act or course of conduct constituting a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior the employer has the right to expect or negligence in such degree or recurrence so as to manifest evil design, wrongful intent, or intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra; Serban v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commw. 147, 370 A.2d 755 (1977).
In determining as a matter of law whether or not the facts of record will support a finding of willful misconduct on the petitioner's part, the nature of the employer's business is particularly relevant, and, the employer here was a developer of industrial processes, equipment and tools. The record indicates that if the designs, patents, photographs, and plans which were reproduced and removed by the petitioner had fallen into the possession of competitors, the employer's operation and the success of his company would likely have been jeopardized. Clearly, the petitioner manifested substantial disregard of his employer's interests even though he contended that his actions were motivated by a deep sense of loyalty to the employer. See Parsons v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw. 378, 397 A.2d 842 (1979). Moreover, it is obvious that his actions contravened both the duties and obligations owed to his employer as well as that standard of behavior which this employer had the right to expect from an employee in a business such as that here involved. We have previously recognized that an employee's unpermitted removal of an employer's property from the employment premises constitutes grounds for a determination of willful misconduct. White v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commw. 110, 330 A.2d 541 (1975). This is even more true where the materials are of a sensitive nature and misappropriation could cause the employer great harm, as in the case here.
We will therefore affirm the decision of this Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of September, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.