Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WALTER H. WINKLER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/13/75)

decided: May 13, 1975.

WALTER H. WINKLER, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Walter H. Winkler, No. B-121649.

COUNSEL

Edward Van Stevenson, Jr., for appellant.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish Jr., and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.

Author: Mencer

[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 50]

Walter H. Winkler (claimant), a food brokerage traveling salesman and "set-up" man, was discharged from his employment with Tenser, Phipps and Leeper (employer) because of his failure to report his daily job locations. All of the compensation authorities, the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, denied claimant benefits and he therefore appealed to this Court. These authorities all premised their denials on 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. ยง 802(e), which provides in part:

"An employe 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 . . . ."

Claimant contends that the denial of compensation is not supported by the evidence in the case and that the

[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 51]

    record cannot support a conclusion of "willful misconduct." We agree.

We have previously discussed the concept of willful misconduct under Section 402(e) in Loder v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 484, 296 A.2d 297 (1972), where we stated:

"Unfortunately, the Legislature has not defined the phrase 'willful misconduct'. The appellate courts of this Commonwealth have endeavored to establish the standards to be applied in willful misconduct cases. As a general principle in order to deny unemployment compensation benefits to an employee, his or her action must involve a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.