Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review v. Dixon
| Decision Date | 25 October 1976 |
| Citation | 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 8,365 A.2d 668 |
| Parties | UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW of Pennsylvania v. Frazier DIXON, Appellant. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Charles G. Hasson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, Harrisburg, for appellee.
Before BOWMAN, President Judge, and CRUMLISH, Jr., WILKINSON, MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT, JJ.
Frazier Dixon appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review adverse to his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. Mr. Dixon was declared ineligible for benefits for willful misconduct, pursuant to 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).
Mr. Dixon had worked for wages for Publicker Industries for 18 months prior to his discharge; his last duties were as an assistant machine operator. There is no evidence in this record that his work was other than satisfactory and he seems to have received advancements in duties and wages. He was discharged solely because when he first applied for work he had recorded on an application that he had no record of arrests, when in fact he had such a record, the existence of which the employer ascertained as the result of an anonymous telephone call.
The employer's representative told Mr. Dixon that his discharge was required by company policy but that Mr. Dixon would be eligible for unemployment compensation. The company did not appear at either of two hearings conducted below and did not contest the claim for compensation. Neither the application for employment executed by Mrs. Dixon, nor a record of his arrest appears in the record made below. There is in that record, however, a letter from Mr. Dixon's parole officer, attesting to the sincerity of Mr. Dixon's efforts to rehabilitate his life and commenting bitterly on the State's adding to the injury of discharge from employment, that of the denial of unemployment benefits.
The Legislature has not particularized what actions constitute willful misconduct. Courts have said that the term includes acts of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, deliberate violations of the employer's rules, conduct in disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect, and acts showing intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or the employee's duties and obligations. Warminster Fiberglass Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa.Cmwlth. 385, 327 A.2d 219 (1975). While any deliberately false answer to an inquiry on an employment application would appear on superficial glance to fall within one or more of the descriptions of willful misconduct, it seems to us that a profounder view suggests that the information invited by the application and falsely provided should concern matters material to the employment sought for the errant answer to be disqualifying for unemployment benefits. See Cecchini Unemployment Compensation Case, 188 Pa.Super. 247, 146 A.2d 615 (1958). The employer has the burden to prove that the employee's discharge was for an act of willful misconduct. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa.Cmwlth. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973). Mr. Dixon's employer has not contested his eligibility. Does the record affirmatively show that Mr. Dixon's arrest was material to his employment as an hourly employee of his employer's industrial plant? We think not. It fails to reveal either the nature of the charges upon which Mr. Dixon was arrested or when he was arrested and does not, therefore, in our opinion, support the conclusion that he was guilty of willful misconduct by falsely misstating a matter material to his employment.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's brief...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunter v. Port Authority of Allegheny County
... ... [419 A.2d 635] ... See also ... Unemployment Bd. of Review v. Dixon, 27 Pa.Cmwlth ... 8, 365 A.2d 668 (1976) (former employee may not be denied ... employment compensation for failing to inform employer at ... time of hiring of prior arrest ... ...
-
Miller Brewing Co. v. Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations
...not entitled to benefits. 7 The employee urges that this court adopt "the more modern approach," citing Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review v. Dixon, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 8, 365 A.2d 668 (1976), and Casias v. Indust. Comm., 38 Colo.App. 261, 554 P.2d 1357 Dixon involved an employee who was discharged for ......
-
Smith v. State, Dept. of Employment
...brought to other recent cases which demonstrate Fleury was not just an isolated happenstance. In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Dixon, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 8, 365 A.2d 668 (1976), six judges of the Commonwealth Court were agreed that "information ... falsely provided should concern m......
-
Brown v. Iowa Beef Processors
...we seem to be departing), requiring both a deliberate and material omission or misstatement. In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Dixon, 27 Pa.Cmwlth. 8, 365 A.2d 668 (1976), the claimant was discharged solely because when he first applied for work he had recorded on an applicati......