Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary M. Kosmalski, No. B-144506.
Dianne Upson, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 528]
The Bureau of Employment Security, the referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) have all ruled that Mary M. Kosmalski (claimant) is disqualified from receiving unemployment
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 529]
compensation benefits because of willful misconduct, by reason of the provisions of 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. § 802(e).
The findings of the Board are not in dispute. Claimant was last employed by Habbersett Brothers, Inc., as an assistant bookkeeper at $167.50 per week. She had worked for this employer about three years and nine months, and her last day of work was September 10, 1976. At the time of her hiring as an assistant bookkeeper, claimant falsified her job application by stating she had graduated from a high school commercial program which included courses in bookkeeping. The admitted fact in this regard was that claimant had not graduated from high school. During the eight months prior to claimant's dismissal, her work had declined and numerous errors and needed corrections in her work were pointed out to her, but her work performance failed to return to its previous three-year satisfactory level.
The Legislature has not enunciated what actions constitute willful misconduct. Courts have concluded that the term includes acts of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, deliberate violations of the employer's rules, conduct in disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect, and acts showing intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or the employee's duties and obligations. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973).
The credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it are for the Board. Our scope of review is confined to questions of law where, as here, the findings
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 530]
of the Board as to the facts are supported by the ...