Opinion
March 15, 1974.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Intoxication — Scope of appellate review — Sufficient evidence — Findings of fact — Credibility — Weight of evidence — Conflicting evidence.
1. Intoxication during working hours is wilful misconduct so that one discharged for such conduct is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [448]
2. In an unemployment compensation case questions of credibility and the weight of the evidence are for the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, and a finding of the Board is not deemed to be unsupported by competent and credible evidence because some evidence was introduced conflicted with the evidence supporting such finding. [448-9]
Submitted on briefs December 7, 1973, to Judges CRUMLISH, JR., KRAMER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 423 C.D. 1973, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of John J. Cornyn, No. B-115925.
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.
J. Craig Kuhn, with him Kuhn, Engle, Blair and Stein, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. P. Christian Hague, with him Meyer, Unkovic Scott, for intervening appellee.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which denied Claimant Cornyn compensation benefits.
Claimant was hired by the Institute of Computer Management (ICM), a trade school offering courses in computer programming, in October or November of 1971. Claimant's work involved making telephone calls and follow-up appointments with prospective students. Working hours were generally 2:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. without fixed hours for lunch.
On April 19, 1972, Claimant was fired by the Director of Admissions of the school who charged that he had been drinking alcoholic beverages during working hours.
The Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denied Claimant benefits in determining that he was guilty of "willful misconduct."
Claimant appeals here.
There is no dispute that intoxication during working hours amounts to "willful misconduct." Hassen Unemployment Compensation Case, 189 Pa. Super. 386, 150 A.2d 158 (1959); Bates Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Super. 529, 90 A.2d 379 (1952).
The thrust of the Appellant's case is that there is no "competent, credible evidence" to support the Board's determination that he had been drunk during working hours. Claimant would have us dismiss the determination of the Board because conflicting testimony was presented on the question of whether he was intoxicated the day he was fired. The mere fact that conflicting evidence was presented does not necessarily mean that there is no competent or credible evidence to support particular findings. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given certain evidence are for the Board. Dennis L. Marcentino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 204, 309 A.2d 462 (1973). It is obvious here that the Board believed the testimony of the numerous witnesses of the employer. We think it is unnecessary to burden the reader by outlining in detail the testimony. Suffice it to say that the findings of the Board are clearly supported by the evidence.
We have examined the other arguments of Claimant, find that they lack merit and call for no further elaboration.
Accordingly, we enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of March, 1974, the Order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 21, 1973, is hereby affirmed.