Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Carol J. Walton, No. B-114071.
David H. Kubert, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Frank E. Hahn, Jr., for intervening appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
After three hearings, a remand order of this Court, and two opinions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), Carol J. Walton (appellant) appeals the Board's latest decision which denied her unemployment compensation benefits because of her discharge from employment with Eaton Corporation for willful misconduct connected with her work.*fn1
In willful misconduct cases, the burden of establishing claimant's ineligibility is placed on the employer. MacFarlane v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 550, 317 A.2d 324 (1974). Additionally, our scope of review in these cases is confined to questions of law and to a determination as to whether or not the findings of the compensation authorities
are supported by substantial evidence. Warminster Fiberglass Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 385, 327 A.2d 219 (1974). The question as to whether or not an employee's actions constitute willful misconduct is, of course, one of law and subject to our review. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 11 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 535, 314 A.2d 528 (1974).
In interpreting the concept of willful misconduct, we have often stated that "'[m]isconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefit an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful 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 employe or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or the employe's duties and obligations to the employer.' See Sun Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 289, 310 A.2d 449 (1973); DiAmico v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 286, 310 A.2d 433 (1973)." (Emphasis added.) Chambers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 317, 319-20, 318 A.2d 422, 423 (1974).
The Board's only finding of fact on the concept of willful misconduct was that "[t]he claimant was discharged because she left her place of employment without permission from her supervisor, following an argument over work procedures." It is impossible for us to exercise our review, or for the Board to have made its determination, based on this single limited finding.
As Judge Flood said, in speaking for the Superior Court, "it was incumbent upon the board to make findings of the underlying facts ...