Opinion
Argued June 7, 1979
August 7, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — insubordination.
1. An employe discharged for failure to follow reasonable instructions, insubordination and instigating an altercation with a fellow employe is properly found to have been guilty of wilful misconduct and ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [628-9]
Argued June 7, 1979, before Judges BLATT, DiSALLE and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 504 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Larry Matisko, No. B-153129
Application to the 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.
Larry Matisko, petitioner, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Larry Matisko (Claimant) appeals from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's denial of benefits by reason of the determination that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e). The referee found, and the record amply indicates, that, prior to his discharge, Claimant, who was employed as a cook, failed to follow his employer's reasonable work instructions and was verbally warned about such acts of insubordination. On the day of his discharge, Claimant instigated a confrontation with a fellow employe by pushing items of food, in the process of being prepared by this employe, off a table onto the floor. Notwithstanding the fact that Claimant's work performance may have been satisfactory in all other respects, there is no question that conduct such as that just demonstrated constitutes willful misconduct within the meaning of the Law. See Conrad v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 Pa. Commw. 255, 389 A.2d 725 (1978); Brennan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commw. 569, 333 A.2d 794 (1975). We affirm.
PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated January 31, 1978, is hereby affirmed.