Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Stephen J. Grcich, No. B-168398-B.
Charles Skomski, for petitioner.
Karen Durkin, Assistant Attorney General, with her John E. Costello, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondents.
Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge Wilkinson.
Stephen Grcich (claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied benefits for willful misconduct pursuant to 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).
Claimant had been employed as a floor worker by Corning Glass Works (employer) for a period of five years, when he was discharged for allegedly refusing to perform his assigned duties as requested by his supervisor and using profane language in response to her directions. The Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security issued a determination denying benefits to claimant for willful misconduct. Claimant appealed, and the referee issued a decision on March 3, 1978 reversing the Bureau and granting benefits. The employer appealed the referee's decision to the Board. The Board remanded the case for the purpose of taking additional testimony. After reviewing this
testimony, the Board affirmed the referee's decision on January 25, 1979 and made the following relevant findings of fact:
2. The claimant was discharged for alleged violation of company rules against insubordination and using abusive language. Involved therein are two incidents on December 23 and 30, 1977 when the claimant is alleged to have refused to perform assigned duties when instructed to do so by a supervisor and to have used abusive language to the supervisors in question.
3. On December 23, 1977 the claimant's supervisor grabbed him by the arm and told him to do certain clean-up work.
4. The aforementioned incident occurred after the claimant's scheduled quitting time and the claimant informed the supervisor that he was leaving as he was on his own time.
5. The claimant was performing duties as a sealer and the clean-up work in question was not ...