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

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Citation405 A.2d 1034,45 Pa.Cmwlth. 539
PartiesGeorge J. MILLER, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.
Decision Date10 September 1979

[45 Pa.Cmwlth. 540] Bart M. Beier, Richard B. Mellman, John R. Banke, Pittsburgh, for petitioner.

Richard Wagner, Gen. Counsel, Elsa D. Newman, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, Harrisburg, for respondent.

[45 Pa.Cmwlth. 539] Before MENCER, ROGERS and CRAIG, JJ.

CRAIG, Judge.

George J. Miller (employer) appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which granted benefits to claimant Diana L. Dauber, by reversing the referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, As amended (Law), 43 P.S. § 802(e), the "willful misconduct" disqualification. 1

We affirm the Board.

[45 Pa.Cmwlth. 541] This court has repeatedly held that willful misconduct, to meet the statutory standards, must reflect more than inability to perform, lack of experience, or marginal enthusiasm for the employer's business. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Kullen, 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 488, 346 A.2d 926 (1975). Willful misconduct is established only where the acts complained of amount to a detrimental disregard of the employer's interests, or are substantially inimical to those interests. Kullen, supra; Harbutz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 235, 309 A.2d 840 (1973).

The record in this case reveals that the claimant's relations with her employer and co-workers were not ideal. Her four-month tenure with the employer was punctuated by several incidents of disharmony, alternatively characterized by the employer as claimant's recalcitrance and reluctance, and by the claimant herself as minor personal disputes or simply expressed dissatisfaction with work assignments or workload allocation. The employer's allegations of instances of outright refusal to perform assignments and deliberate making of errors so as to avoid similar future assignments are

squarely contested and denied by claimant's own testimony

Therefore we cannot hold as a matter of law that the Board was in error in finding that the claimant performed to the best of her ability. The evidence presented at the hearing was conflicting; it is not this court's function to balance that evidence. Questions of credibility and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts are within the sound discretion of the Board, and are not subject to re-evaluation on judicial review. Affalter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ---, 397 A.2d 863 [45 Pa.Cmwlth. 542] (1979); Simet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ---, 396 A.2d 893 (1979).

We hold that the Board's decision is founded on substantial evidence. We therefore affirm the award of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Carolina Freight Carriers Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
    • United States
    • Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
    • November 4, 1994
    ...inferences which can be drawn from the evidence. Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 539, 405 A.2d 1034 (1979). Here, Employer presents no evidence to show that the Notice was sent. Together with Claimant's testimony that the Notice was never received......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT