Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Patricia A. Lotz, No. B-132294.
Lynn Erickson Stock, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 240]
Claimant was discharged on April 25, 1975, after working over 15 years (four years for the present management) for allegedly making derogatory remarks about the general manager and other management personnel at the radio station where she worked. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits but was found ineligible by the Bureau of Employment Security under Section 402(e) (wilful misconduct) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Claimant appealed this decision and the referee reversed finding no direct non-hearsay evidence of the claimant's wilful misconduct. The employer then appealed this decision and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) remanded for a further hearing before a Board Hearing Officer. At this remand hearing the employer presented the testimony of witnesses, co-employees of the claimant. On the basis of this testimony the Board reversed the decision of the referee and denied benefits.
The Board found the following:
1. Claimant was last employed by Eastern Radio Corporation, Berkshire Towers, Reading, Pennsylvania in office management at $140.00 per week for 15 years and four months. Her last day of work was April 25, 1975.
2. The claimant, in conversation with fellow employees on numerous occasions, referred to the employer's general manager in a derogatory manner using obscene descriptive terms.
[ 31 Pa. Commw. Page 2413]
. The claimant, in conversation with fellow employees on numerous occasions, described the employer's general manager and two other management officers as being dishonest.
4. The claimant was discharged for acts not in the best interest of the employer.
Claimant argues that there is not substantial evidence to support the findings of fact and conclusion of law of the Board. After a careful review ...