Appeal, No. 240, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-50591, in re claim of Stanley P. Kozlowski. Decision reversed.
Stanley M. Greenberg, with him Bernard S. Ochman, for claimant, appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.
Peter Platten, with him Edward G. Bauer, Jr., and Hamilton C. Connor, Jr., and Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, for employer, intervening appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (gunther, J., absent).
[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 84]
This is an unemployment compensation case in which the claimant was denied benefits under the provision that "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week - (e) In which his unemployment is due to discharge... from work for willful misconduct connected with his work;..." Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(e). The Bureau of Employment Security found the claimant ineligible; the Referee reversed the Bureau,
[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 85]
allowing benefits; and the Board of Review reversed the referee holding the claimant to be guilty of willful misconduct and so disqualified from receiving benefits.
The board found that Stanley P. Kozlowski, the claimant appellant was last employed by the Philadelphia Transportation Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the intervening appellee, on August 7, 1958; that he had been employed by the company for 13 years; that during the period from March 27, 1958 to August 4, 1958, the claimant was observed by six different company inspectors, violating fare box regulations on seven occasions; that the violations consisted in making change for passengers for whom no fares were deposited in the box; that it is the duty of an operator to see that a fare is deposited for each passenger and to make sure by visual inspection that the proper amount has been deposited.
There is no question that if the finding that this claimant violated company rules is supported by competent evidence, this appeal is without merit. We held in a similar factual situation that, "The company's rules require that each customer deposit the tokens or money for his fare in the fare box, and prohibits the operators from depositing any such tokens or money in the box for the customer. If the customer does not have the change, he is required to obtain it from the operator and to personally deposit the fare in the box. This company rule is obviously a very important one, and violation of it has been held by this Court to be sufficient cause to discharge an employe for willful misconduct." Coschi Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 154, 156, 141 A.2d 416 (1958).
The issue before this Court is whether there is sufficient legal, competent evidence to support the finding that the claimant violated the rule. The only evidence in ...