Summary
finding claimant engaged in willful misconduct by falsifying overtime hours for himself and his subordinates
Summary of this case from Schiavo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
December 28, 1983.
Unemployment compensation — Willful misconduct — Burden of proof — Credibility.
1. For unemployment compensation purposes willful misconduct is an act in wanton or willful disregard of an employer's interests, a deliberate violation of an employer's rules, conduct contrary to standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee or negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional disregard of an employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. [236]
2. The employer has the burden of proving that an unemployment compensation claimant was discharged for willful misconduct. [236]
3. In an unemployment compensation case questions of credibility raised by conflicting testimony are for the determination of the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. [237]
Submitted on briefs November 16, 1983, to Judges ROGERS, BARRY and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2788 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Norwood Henninger, No. B-200217.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Allen Shaffer, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
This is a claimant's appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review declaring him ineligible for unemployment compensation because he was discharged for willful misconduct. Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
The claimant was last employed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture as the building maintenance supervisor of the Farm Show complex in Harrisburg. On April 14, 1981, the claimant was discharged by the Secretary of Agriculture for "poor management and poor supervision."
The claimant's application for unemployment compensation was refused by the Office of Employment Security upon a determination that the claimant had been discharged for willful misconduct. This action was upheld by a referee and by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
The claimant contends that the employer failed to meet its burden of proving that he had been discharged for willful misconduct.
Willful misconduct has been defined as an act in wanton or willful disregard of an employer's interests, a deliberate violation of an employer's rules, conduct contrary to standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee or negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional disregard of an employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commw. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973). The employer has the burden of proving that a claimant was discharged for willful misconduct. Flanagan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commw. 120, 407 A.2d 471 (1979).
The evidence in this record supports the Board's conclusion that the claimant was guilty of willful misconduct. A witness for the employer testified that during the course of an interview conducted pursuant to an investigation of the management of the Farm Show complex the claimant: (1) admitted that he falsified his overtime hours by adding six to eight hours per week to his time card; (2) admitted that he falsified the time cards of subordinate employees by recording time on the cards of absent employees and; (3) admitted that he granted compensatory time to a subordinate employee in exchange for the use of the employee's personal property in connection with Farm Show operation. The employer also produced evidence that the claimant requested and received payment for one hundred and two hours of overtime for which he had already been paid.
The claimant denied making the admissions but the compensation authorities believed the witnesses against him. Questions of credibility raised by conflicting testimony are for the referee's and the Board's determination. Danko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw. 387, 397 A.2d 489 (1979); James v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa. Commw. 489, 296 A.2d 288 (1972).
Order affirmed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 1983, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.