Opinion
December 11, 1958.
March 18, 1959.
Unemployment Compensation — Willful misconduct — Violation of employer's rule — Checking of packages taken out by employe — Single act of misconduct — Findings of fact — Appellate review — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant was discharged for violation of an enforced rule of the employer, notice of which had been posted prominently throughout the employer's store, to the effect that all packages taken out by employes had to be checked by the manager before leaving the store, it was Held that the evidence sustained the findings of the board and its decision denying benefits, under § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
2. A single act of an employe may constitute willful misconduct within the meaning of § 402(e) despite a prior good record of the employe.
3. Findings of fact of the board, supported by sufficient competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 53, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-48797, in re claim of Mildred D. Salvitti. Decision affirmed.
Maurice J. Friedman, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Argued December 11, 1958.
Claimant had been in the employ of Horn and Hardart Baking Company for 16 years; she last worked in her employer's store at 1321 Market Street in Philadelphia. She was suspended by the store manager on May 2, 1958 for violation of a rule of the company and was finally discharged for the same reason three weeks later. These facts are reflected in the findings of the board: It is an enforced rule of the company, notice of which had been posted prominently throughout the store, to the effect that all packages taken out by employes must be checked by the manager before leaving the store; the package must be taken to the manager for checking by the employe herself, and her obligation in that respect cannot be delegated to another. Claimant admittedly was well aware of that long-standing rule of the company. On claimant's last night of work as she was leaving the store with another employe they were stopped by a house detective who found that each had a package of food products which had not been checked by the store manager. Claimant's companion had been under suspicion but claimant's conduct had never before been questioned. The findings of the board, supported as they are by sufficient competent evidence, must be regarded as conclusive in our disposition of this appeal, under the Unemployment Compensation Law as last amended by the Act of September 29, 1951, P.L. 1580, § 18, 43 P. S. § 830. Antinopoulas Unempl. Comp. Case, 185 Pa. Super. 76, 137 A.2d 921. Upon findings reflecting the above facts the board affirmed the referee in denying benefits, under § 402(e) of the Act, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
A single act of an employe may constitute willful misconduct within the meaning of § 402(e) despite a prior good record of the employe. Dati Unempl. Compensation Case, 184 Pa. Super. 292, 132 A.2d 765. The seriousness of the violation of the company rule in this case, in its overall effect, was for the employer to determine and the employer was not bound to overlook the infraction of the rule by the claimant employe merely because it was her first offense. Moreover the money value of the property taken is immaterial. Claimant's misconduct was an act of "willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee . . ." within the holding of Detterer Unemp. Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Super. 291, 77 A.2d 886, which we have consistently followed and applied. Cf. Weimer Unempl. Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 348, 107 A.2d 607.
Under the findings, supported as they are by the evidence, we are without authority to interfere with the order in this case.
Order affirmed.