Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/09/82)

decided: December 9, 1982.

WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. MARIA SANTIAGO, INTERVENING RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Maria Santiago, No. B-193993.

COUNSEL

Joseph A. Bubba, with him William H. Fitzgerald, Butz, Hudders & Tallman, for petitioner.

Charles Donahue, Associate Counsel, for respondent.

O. Randolph Bragg, with him David A. School, for intervenor.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 335]

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granted benefits to Maria Santiago. Western Electric Company appeals. We affirm.

Santiago was discharged for ignoring warnings to refrain from contacting her former supervisor about personal matters during working hours.

[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 336]

The Office of Employment Security denied benefits, concluding that Santiago's behavior amounted to willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 and the referee affirmed. The Board, however, reversed and found that Santiago's violation of her employer's directive was not intentional but had resulted from her difficulty in comprehending English.

The employer bears the burden of proving willful misconduct. Penn Photomounts, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 407, 417 A.2d 1311 (1980). Where, as here, the employer has failed to sustain this burden below, our scope of review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the legal conclusion, and whether these findings can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence. Porter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 505, 434 A.2d 245 (1981).

Western Electric argues that, by rejecting its testimony in favor of Santiago's testimony, the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence. We disagree. The Board, as ultimate fact-finder, is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence, evaluate credibility and testimonial weight and reverse the decision of the referee where necessary. Freedom Valley Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.