decided: January 5, 1983.
GALEN C. SCHMIDT, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Galen C. Schmidt, No. B-192997.
Roger V. Wiest, Wiest, Wiest & Saylor, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 56]
Galen C. Schmidt (Claimant) has filed a Petition for Review from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits on the basis of willful misconduct.*fn1
Claimant was last employed by Acme Markets, Inc. (Employer) as a clerk. On November 23, 1980, Claimant reported to work as scheduled. After the store manager informed Claimant that he, the Claimant, was assigned to work the express checkout line, Claimant left work, alleging illness. Claimant was informed the next day that he was discharged.
It is well settled that an employee's refusal to comply with a reasonable assignment can constitute willful misconduct. Hughes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 422, 397 A.2d 494 (1979). An employee may justify such a refusal by demonstrating good cause, however. Gwin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 58 Commonwealth Ct. 69, 427 A.2d 295 (1981).
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 57]
In the present case, the Board determined that Claimant did not refuse the assignment due to illness,*fn2 but rather that Claimant refused the assignment and left work due to dissatisfaction with the assigned duties. Such a finding is based upon the Board's resolution of the conflicting testimony in the record and this Court is bound by that finding. Astarb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 638, 413 A.2d 761 (1980).
Claimant's action in refusing the assignment and leaving work as he did was disruptive of the Employer's scheduling and necessitated the reassignment of personnel. Such behavior thus clearly manifested wanton and willful disregard of Employer's interest and a disregard of the standard of behavior which Employer rightfully could expect sufficient to amount to willful misconduct. See Redano v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 111, 433 A.2d 151 (1981).*fn3
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-192997, dated March 6, 1981, is hereby affirmed.