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

• Decision Date: 24 February 1975
• Citation: 332 A.2d 876,16 Pa.Cmwlth. 462
• Parties: William R. COULTER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 876

332 A.2d 876

16 Pa.Cmwlth. 462

William R. COULTER, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Dec. 5, 1974.

Decided Feb. 24, 1975.

Odel Parkinson, Washington, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and BLATT, JJ.

OPINION

BLATT, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits.

William R. Coulter (claimant) was employed as a truck driver and equipment operator by the M & M Equipment Sales Company (employer) until August 9, 1973 when he was discharged. He filed an application for benefits which was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) on the basis that his discharge was due to willful misconduct as defined in 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). On appeal and after a hearing, the referee affirmed the Bureau and found as a fact that the claimant was discharged for three reasons:

'(a) Claimant was found reclining in the truck during working hours with his shoes off and both doors open; (b) Claimant failed to keep the truck body clean while hauling material as per instructions, and (c) Claimant damaged the truck he was driving by hitting the curb of a bridge.'

The referee held that '(c)laimant's conduct was not in the best interests of the employer and caused the employer loss'.

Our scope of review here, of course, is limited to questions of law and in the absence of fraud, to a determination of whether or not the findings of the compensation authorities are supported by competent evidence. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973). We have held that the question of whether or not an employee's actions amount to willful misconduct is one of law subject to our review. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 11 Pa.Cmwlth. 535, 314 A.2d 528 (1974). And we have consistently adopted the standard definition of willful misconduct: 'Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or 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, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer'. Druzak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa.Cmwlth. 481, 315 A.2d 925 (1974); Harmer Unemployment Compensation Case, 206 Pa.Super. 270, 213 A.2d 221 (1965). None of the reasons given by the employer for the discharge of the claimant in this case meets the standards set by that definition.

The incident involving the claimant's reclining in his truck during working hours must be considered in the context of the entire testimony. The claimant stated at the hearing that on the day in question he had been driving the truck for the whole day when, at about two or three o'clock, he drove it to a rock pit for loading. He said that the rock crusher there was broken and that two trucks which consequently could not get loaded were waiting in front of him. Because it was a warm day and and the claimant's feet were hot, he stated that, after parking the truck, he took off his heavy boots, opened the door of the cab and reclined on the seat while placing his feet outside. He said that he remained in this position for about three or four minutes until Mr. Miller, president of the employer company, drove by and sounded his horn, at which time he sat up. None of this testimony was contradicted, and we must conclude that the claimant in this instance was in no way disregarding his employer's interest nor was he violating any standard of behavior which the employer had a...