Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Melvin E. Affalter, No. B-145478.
James R. Miller, with him Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, for petitioner.
William Dade, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 483]
Melvin E. Affalter (Claimant) appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn1
Claimant was last employed as a sales manager for Associated Products (Employer) in the Pittsburgh area. His duties included the sale and servicing of deodorizers for commercial institutions. Claimant was also required to work in the Cleveland area approximately once or twice a year when manpower shortage developed.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 484]
Claimant refused to go to Cleveland for a short period of time in January, 1977,*fn2 to perform customer service work contending that he was unable to comply with Employer's demands because a heart condition would be aggravated by additional exposure to cold temperatures. The existence of the heart condition was not disputed and Claimant's refusal resulted in his termination.
The Board, without taking additional evidence, affirmed the denial of benefits by the referee on the basis of Section 402(e) of the Act. We affirm.
Claimant argues on appeal that the referee's findings of fact*fn3 are not supported by the record and his isolated act of disobedience is insufficient to constitute willful misconduct.
In an unemployment compensation case in this Commonwealth, the findings and decision of the referee and Board must be sustained if supported by substantial evidence. Stalc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 131, 318 A.2d 398 (1974). A finding is supported by substantial evidence if upon review of the entire record and all inferences derived therefrom, a reasonable man might have reached the same conclusion. St. Andrew Development Co. v. Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 123, 308 A.2d 623 (1973).
Claimant here testified that in Cleveland he would be required to perform customer service work as opposed to sales work and that customer service work required more stops and hence more exposure to potentially severe cold weather. Employer, on ...