Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Kenneth E. Smith, No. B-197167.
Robert E. Benion, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 409]
Kenneth E. Smith here appeals from the denial of his claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming a referee, found that the claimant had been discharged from his position as an upholstery trimmer with Pennsylvania House, a division of General Mills Corporation engaged in the manufacture of furniture, on account of his disqualifying willful misconduct
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 410]
within the meaning of Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 43 P.S. § 802(e).
The specific offense charged by the employer and found by the Board to have substantial evidentiary support was that the claimant falsified certain records essential to the computation of his wages. The findings of the Board on this issue are as follows:
2. Plant Rule No. 22 states that an employee will be automatically discharged for falsification of work records.
3. The claimant was aware of this rule.
4. On March 4, 1981, the claimant was completing some repair work on a sofa.
5. An employee does not get an average rate to close a job but is only given an average rate back to the point the job is started.
6. The claimant completed his timecard to reflect the average rate on the entire job and additionally took his ticket time.
The question before us, then, is whether these findings, and especially finding number six set forth above, which the claimant contests, are supported by substantial evidence of record and are adequate to resolve the factual issues raised by the parties.
At the outset we must submit that the expressions "average rate," "close a job" and "ticket time," employed by the Board in its findings, are not, in our experience, terms so commonly and universally understood as to permit their unelucidated usage in this context. Neither is the testimonial or documentary evidence of record of much assistance on this score. The best description of the claimant's conduct assertedly constituting willful misconduct is the following:
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 411]
Referee: Tell me what happened.
Supervisor: O.K. Two jobs came through our ...