Beville v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 16 January 1975
• Citation: 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 371,327 A.2d 197
• Parties: Richard P. BEVILLE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 197

327 A.2d 197

15 Pa.Cmwlth. 371

Richard P. BEVILLE, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 11, 1974.

Decided Oct. 24, 1974.

Petition for Allowance of Appeal Denied Jan. 16, 1975.

[15 Pa.Cmwlth. 372] Harry A. Dower, Allentown, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Asst. Atty. Gen., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before CRUMLISH, Jr., WILKINSON and ROGERS, JJ.

OPINION

ROGERS, Judge.

This unemployment compensation appeal is a companion to our opinion in Beville v. State Civil Service Commission, Pa.Cmwlth., 327 A.2d 196 (Filed October 24, 1974), filed simultaneously herewith. The facts are set forth in our opinion in that case, in which we held that the appellant's discharge from his civil service position with the State Liquor Control Board for assaulting another employee was for just cause.

The only question here is whether the appellant's discharge was for willful misconduct rendering him ineligible for benefits. 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).

As we recently reiterated in Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973), willful misconduct has been judicially defined as (1) the wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interest, (2) the deliberate violation of rules, (3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee, or (4) negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. A deliberate assault upon another on the employer's premises clearly falls within two of those categories.

We are mindful of Mr. Beville's long and exemplary record of service to the Board. However, a single act of misconduct, if sufficiently serious, will justify a denial of benefits. Fritsche Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa.Super. 574, 176 A.2d 186 (1961).

Our review is limited to questions of law and a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are for the Board. We discern no error of law and we find ample support for the findings upon which the decision...