Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Charles F. Hollenbaugh, No. B-108220.
Richard M. Mohler, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 605]
Charles F. Hollenbaugh had been employed by Sitkin Converting, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Sitkin), as a machine operator for approximately two years. On October 6, 1970, Hollenbaugh refused an order from his foreman to sweep the floor. The next morning he was told that he had been given a day off as a result of this indiscretion. Hollenbaugh then left work and did not return thereafter.
Hollenbaugh's application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security on the ground that his termination was due to his wilful misconduct. This decision was reversed by a referee, and unemployment benefits were
[ 11 Pa. Commw. Page 606]
granted on the basis that Hollenbaugh voluntarily quit his job with a necessitous and compelling reason. The referee's decision was then affirmed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) and this appeal by Sitkin followed. We affirm.
Our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination as to whether the Board's findings (in this case, the referee's findings adopted by the Board) are supported by the evidence. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are for the Board. Also, the party victorious below is to be given the benefit of any inferences which can reasonably and logically be drawn from the evidence. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973).
Mindful of the above, we now consider Sitkin's arguments on appeal.
Sitkin first argues that Hollenbaugh is not entitled to unemployment benefits because his unemployment was due to his discharge or suspension from work for wilful misconduct. This argument ignores the fact that Hollenbaugh was only suspended for one day for his wilful misconduct in refusing to sweep. The day of this suspension was October 7, 1970, and no benefits have been awarded to Hollenbaugh for that day.
Sitkin's second argument is that Hollenbaugh is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. It is true that this argument presents a question of law which is subject to our review. Rone Unemployment Compensation Case, 211 Pa. Superior Ct. 425, 235 A.2d 432 (1967). However, upon review, we have no ...