Opinion
Argued December 8, 1978
January 24, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Scope of appellate review — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Conflicting evidence — Credibility — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Wilful misconduct — Violation of employer's policy — Redemption of coupons — Disregard of expected behavior standards.
1. In an unemployment compensation case the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is bound by findings of fact of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which are supported by substantial evidence and must leave to the Board the resolution of evidentiary conflicts and questions of credibility. [86-7]
2. A cashier who is discharged for redeeming more than one coupon per customer in a retail store in violation of known company policy is properly found to have wilfully disregarded her employer's interests and expected behavior standards and to have been guilty of wilful misconduct precluding her receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [87]
Argued December 8, 1978, before Judges ROGERS, DiSALLE and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1589 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of JoAnne D. Simet, No. B-147296.
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.
Michael J. Rostolsky, for petitioner.
Elsa D. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
JoAnne D. Simet (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits by reason of a determination that Claimant's discharge from her employment was due to willful misconduct within the meaning of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e). It is uncontested that on Claimant's last day of work as a cashier at a retail produce store, she redeemed $20.00 worth of coupons for cookie mix from one customer, her brother, even though she knew that each coupon was stamped "one per customer." Claimant contends that the findings of fact of the Board are not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's finding of willful misconduct constitutes an error of law. We disagree.
The single contested finding of fact was supported by the testimony of the employer's representative. Troyen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commw. 445, 383 A.2d 975 (1978), and Rodites v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commw. 128, 382 A.2d 1287 (1978), stand for the propositions that the Board is the ultimate fact finder and the arbiter of conflicts in evidence and the credibility of witnesses, and that findings of fact supported by substantial evidence are binding on this Court. The Board's conclusion that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct comports with law in that the evidence indicates that the employer notified Claimant of its basic policy regarding the redemption of coupons; that Claimant knew that only one coupon per customer could be accepted; that Claimant nevertheless accepted coupons in derogation of the Employer's policy and her own understanding of what was permissible; and that the Employer was adversely affected thereby. In Smiley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commw. 382, 383 A.2d 985 (1978), we held that an employee's willful disregard of an employer's interests or the standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of an employe may constitute willful misconduct. We affirm.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 24th day of January, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated July 11, 1977, denying benefits to JoAnne D. Simet, is hereby affirmed.