Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Harold Palmer, No. B-70-1-C-105.
Harold Palmer, appellant, for himself.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr., and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three.
Appellant was denied unemployment compensation benefits as a result of a referee's determination that appellant had been discharged for willful misconduct. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, 2nd Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), provides:
"An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week . . .
"(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is 'employment' as defined in this act. . . ."
The referee found that on November 30, 1970, appellant was informed that he was to be laid off on December 4, 1970. About 20 other employees were likewise subject to this layoff order. Following this notification, the referee found that appellant "refused to perform his assigned duties and was walking around the plant or reading or simply sitting and doing nothing when he should have been working." Appellant was warned that disciplinary action would ensue if such conduct continued.
On December 2, 1970, the production superintendent discovered "eight or nine" circuit breakers which appeared to be willfully damaged in the area where appellant worked as quality control supervisor. The following day, the production supervisor observed appellant take a circuit breaker off the test board and deliberately throw it six feet against a bench, resulting in irreparable damage. Appellant was discharged the same day, December 3, 1970.
All of the findings are supported by the testimony of two witnesses for the employer, including the production superintendent. Although the appellant contradicted this testimony in some instances, the findings of the Board as to facts, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive on appeal. Fields v. ...