Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Juliet Wiezer, No. B-196195.
Jay Meyers, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 491]
Juliet Wiezer appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying her claim for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The findings of the referee, which were adopted by the Board of Review, indicate that the claimant was employed from August of 1979 to March of 1981 as a cook's helper at a senior citizens' residence. During the last three months of her tenure in the job, the claimant received two written warnings and one three-day suspension for poor job performance. Finally, on March 3, 1981, the claimant was discharged for her refusal to comply with orders from her supervisors to
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 492]
perform functions described in her job description. On these findings, the Board affirmed the referee's decision that the claimant engaged in willful misconduct.*fn2
The claimant contends that the Board's decision was erroneous because the duties which she allegedly refused to perform were not part of her usual job functions. She also contends that the Board's decision is assailable because she was summarily discharged by the employer. Finally, she argues that the record taken as a whole indicates no wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests. We find no merit in these arguments, and for the reasons which follow, affirm the decision of the Board of Review.
Our scope of review in this case is clear: we must (1) examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party prevailing below to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings, and (2) determine whether there has been an error of law or a showing of fraud. Lake v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 138, 409 A.2d 126 (1979). Thus, we may overturn the Board's finding that the claimant refused to perform functions which were within her job description only if we find no substantial evidence in the record to support that finding. While the claimant has stated repeatedly and emphatically that the cleaning chores which she was directed to perform were not part of her job responsibilities, she has failed to explain why the Board should have disregarded contrary evidence presented by the employer. Such evidence included a job description which specifically referred to cleaning responsibilities, and the understanding and acceptance of which was acknowledged
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 493]
by the claimant's signature; a daily schedule for the claimant's job classification which designated cleaning functions; and the testimony of the claimant's supervisors that her job included cleaning her work areas and that the claimant had performed such duties in the past. This evidence is competent and substantial, and amply supports the Board's finding that the claimant ...