decided: October 17, 1980.
BETSY K. TAYLOR, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Glenda H. Kann et al., No. B-171198.
Frances H. Del Duca, Faller & Del Duca, for petitioner.
Charles Hasson, with him Stephen B. Lipson and Elsa Newman-Silverstine, Assistant Attorneys General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 288]
Claimant Betsy K. Taylor petitions for review of the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (board) denying benefits to her under 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 willful misconduct disqualification.
Claimant worked for Handy Markets, Inc. (employer) as a cashier-stocker for about a year and a half before her discharge. The board found that claimant had given discounts to fellow employees on their purchases, and had likewise received discounts from co-workers on her own purchases. The board further found that this conduct violated the employer's policy which permitted discounts only to non-profit organizations, and that claimant was aware of that policy. The board noted that the store manager did not join in this particular practice, although other questionable practices were condoned (and joined in) by the manager, and hence were not treated as willful misconduct by the board.
Claimant's own testimony is substantial evidence supporting the board's finding that claimant knew the employer's policy on employee discounts, and that claimant did give discounts to co-workers.*fn1 Although
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 289]
there is testimony to the contrary regarding claimant's awareness of the policy, such conflicts are within the board's domain as factfinder, and we may not supplant the board's resolution with any independent appraisal of our own.
Clearly, claimant's departure from store policy was inimical to the employer's interest and fell short of the standards the employer may rightfully expect of employees. We cannot hold as a matter of law that claimant's conduct was not willful misconduct as that term has been defined in case law. Lipfert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 46 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 206, 406 A.2d 251 (1979); Kostik v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 32, 315 A.2d 308 (1974).
Accordingly, we will affirm the board's decision.
And Now, this 17th day of October, 1980, the April 19, 1979 decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, at No. B-171198, is affirmed.