Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of John H. Grigsby, Jr., No. B-175188.
Geoffrey M. Biringer, with him Marian E. Frankston, for petitioner.
John Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 483]
Before this Court is an appeal by claimant, John H. Grigsby, Jr., from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision denying claimant unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(e)*fn1 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 484]
Claimant was last employed by the Harrisburg News Company as a line supervisor. He was discharged from his employment in May, 1979, for allegedly creating disturbances while engaging in the performance of his job duties, thereby causing labor stoppages amongst his fellow employees during working hours.
Subsequent to the termination of his employment, claimant filed an application with the Office of Employment Security (Office), seeking to collect unemployment compensation benefits. The Office denied claimant's application, determining that claimant's behavior while in the employ of the Harrisburg News Company constituted willful misconduct. Claimant appealed from the Office's determination, and a referee's hearing was scheduled to resolve the matter. Following the hearing, the referee issued a decision affirming that of the Office. The referee found:
[T]he claimant was involuntarily terminated for creating certain disturbances which caused work stoppages and dissatisfaction among his fellow employees.
Although the claimant believed his reasons for causing the distrubances to be just, the claimant had not taken the proper steps to voice his dissatisfactions through the chain of command, and had received several verbal warnings about same.
When the claimant continued to pursue the same course of conduct and caused a work stoppage on the tie line during the week of May 6 to May 12, 1979, he was discharged.
Thus, the referee concluded, claimant's actions rose to the level of willful misconduct, thereby disqualifying him from receiving benefits. Claimant filed a further ...