Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Carl E. Stief, No. B-196758.
Donald F. Krank, Krank, Gross & Casper, for petitioner.
Richard C. Lengler, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 433]
Macro Enterprises, as employer, appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which granted benefits to claimant Carl E. Stief, reversing the referee's determination that the claimant's conduct before his discharge*fn1 had amounted to
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 434]
"willful misconduct" as defined in Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn2
The employer, which operates a small truckstop, contends that the claimant, who served in a supervisory position as a mechanical maintenance man, had difficulties in supervision, insulted customers, caused loss of business and had problems with women employees, and therefore was discharged because of activity constituting "willful misconduct."
However, the record contains substantial evidence*fn3 to support the board's findings that, although the claimant experienced difficulty in getting along with employees and customers because of his aggressive personality and "nitpicking" tendencies,*fn4 he had "performed his job to the best of his ability."*fn5
Although the claimant may have been incapable of meeting his employer's standards because of his personality, this court "has often held that mere incompetence, incapacity, or inexperience causing poor work performance, will not support a discharge for willful misconduct." Monogram Products Co., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 58 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 291, 295,
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 435427]
A.2d 756, 758 (1981). Unlike Astarb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 638, 413 A.2d 761 (1980) and Hartmann-Hansen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 65, 420 A.2d 20 (1980), upon which the employer relies, the employer has not met the required burden*fn6 to establish that the claimant's lack of success on the ...