decided: November 10, 1982.
HAYDEN BRUDER, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Hayden Bruder, No. B-188262.
Jay M. Berger, for petitioner.
Steven J. Neary, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 10]
Bruder appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order affirming a referee's denial of benefits. We affirm.
Bruder left work after an altercation with his employer over Bruder's off-hours business activities. The referee found that Bruder had voluntarily quit under Section 402(b).*fn1 The Board affirmed the referee.
Bruder contends that he was fired. In a "voluntary quit" case, the burden of proving a right to unemployment compensation rests with the claimant. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976). The referee is the arbiter of credibility. Winder v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 339, 439 A.2d 1344 (1982). In that capacity, he concluded that Bruder had not met his burden.
When the burdened party below has not met that burden, our scope of review is limited to determining
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 11]
whether the Board's fact findings are consistent with each other, and with the legal conclusions, and whether such findings can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence.*fn2 Helsel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 320, 323, 421 A.2d 496, 498 (1980). We must examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed below, Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977). We find that no evidence was capriciously disregarded below.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Order No. B-188262, dated October 2, 1980, is hereby affirmed.