Opinion
June 16, 1961.
September 12, 1961.
Unemployment Compensation — Willful misconduct — Definition — Necessity of actual intent to wrong employer — Forgery of employes' names for payroll deduction contributions to United Fund — Evidence — Credibility of witnesses.
1. Willful misconduct of an employe may consist of a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest; a disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employe; a breach of his duties and obligations to the employer and conduct clearly inimical to the employer's best interest,
2. Willful misconduct does not necessarily require actual intent to wrong the employer; it may exist where there is a conscious indifference to the perpetration of a wrong, or a reckless disregard of the employe's duty to his employer.
3. In unemployment compensation cases, the credibility of witnesses is for the board.
4. In this case, in which it appeared that claimant signed other employes' names for payroll deduction contributions to the United Fund, without authorization from the employes, and that the forgeries were discovered only when the employes complained of the deductions made by the employer in dependence on the forged cards, it was Held that the employe was guilty of misconduct connected with his work.
Before ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., absent).
Appeal, No. 149, Oct. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-57144-B, in re claim of Daniel A. McIntosh. Decision affirmed.
Isaiah W. Crippins, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued June 16, 1961.
In this unemployment compensation case the claimant was denied benefits under the willful misconduct provision contained in § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(e). The Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee concluded that his discharge was due to willful misconduct but the Board of Review initially reversed the referee's decision and awarded benefits. Subsequently, the board vacated its decision and granted employer's petition for a rehearing, after which, the decision of the referee was affirmed and this appeal followed.
The claimant, Daniel A. McIntosh, was last employed by the Budd Company, Red Lion Plant, Philadelphia, Pa., as an automobile assemblyman on October 26, 1959. He was discharged for signing employees' names for payroll deduction contributions to the United Fund without authorization from said employees. The company and the United Automobile Workers had jointly sponsored the annual United Fund Campaign. The claimant admitted signing at least four or five of the payroll deduction pledge cards and there was evidence that he had signed fourteen cards. Two witnesses appeared for the employer and testified that their signatures were affixed to pledge cards without authorization. He admitted signing the cards but denied that they were signed without authority.
Willful misconduct has been held to be a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest; a disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee; a breach of his duties and obligations to his employer and conduct clearly inimical to the employer's best interest. Weimer Unemployment Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 348, 107 A.2d 607 (1954). It does not necessarily require actual intent to wrong the employer "if there is a conscious indifference to the perpetration of a wrong, or a reckless disregard of the employe's duty to his employer he can be discharged for `willful misconduct' and will be denied benefits." Gagliardi Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Super. 142, 147, 141 A.2d 410 (1958).
Dishonesty would certainly fall within these descriptions of willful misconduct and the forging of employees' names to payroll deduction pledge cards, discovered only when such employees complained of the deductions made by the employer in dependence on the pledge cards is such a perpetration of a wrong as to clearly fall within willful misconduct as defined by this Court.
The claimant denied the testimony of the witnesses who claimed the cards had been signed by him without authorization but the fact finding authorities chose to believe them and we are bound by the findings. The credibility of witnesses is for the board. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Super. 400, 116 A.2d 271 (1955).
The fact that his discharge was upheld at a hearing required by the grievance machinery of the collective bargaining agreement between the union and the company supports the conclusion of the board but, of course, cannot determine the eligibility of this employee for benefits, as only the compensation authorities can do this. Gianfelice Unemployment Compensation Case, 396 Pa. 545, 153 A.2d 906 (1959).
Decision affirmed.