Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Anna Borlak, No. B-116375-B.
Michael A. Nemec, with him Judd F. Crosby, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 490]
This is an appeal by Anna Borlak (Borlak) from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 491]
Board of Review (Board), dated November 8, 1973, which denied benefits to Borlak.
Borlak was employed by Barkus Bakery (Bakery) in Allison Park, Pennsylvania, for nearly four years until September 13, 1972, when she was discharged following a disagreement with her employer concerning her lunch break. Borlak applied for unemployment compensation benefits on September 14, 1972, but her application was "disapproved" by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau). Borlak appealed from the Bureau's decision, and a hearing was held before a referee on January 24, 1973. Borlak was not represented by counsel at the hearing. In a decision dated February 13, 1973, the referee found that Borlak had been discharged after she "was instructed by her supervisor to take a lunch break and refused." The referee concluded that Borlak's refusal to take a lunch break amounted to willful misconduct within the provisions of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. § 802(e), and that therefore, Borlak was ineligible to receive benefits.*fn1 Borlak appealed from the decision of the referee, but the Board, in an order dated April 2, 1973, concluded that the referee's determination was proper. Following the Board's decision, Borlak obtained counsel and requested a hearing. On April 26, 1973, the Board vacated its prior decision, reopened the case, and ordered that a further hearing be scheduled. A further hearing, at which Borlak was represented by counsel, was held on
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 492]
May 18, 1973, and in the decision dated November 8, 1973, the Board affirmed the decision of the referee and denied benefits.
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 are supported by substantial evidence. Questions concerning the credibility and weight of evidence are for the Board and the party victorious below is to be given the benefit of any inferences which can reasonably and logically be drawn from the evidence. See Hinkle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 512, 308 A.2d 173 (1973).
In her appeal to this Court, Borlak contends (1) that the decision of the Board is not supported by the evidence, and (2) that the record does not ...