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.

CLAUDE B. BERGER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/22/84)

decided: February 22, 1984.

CLAUDE B. BERGER, JR., PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Claude B. Berger, Jr., No. B-205100.

COUNSEL

William C. Haynes, for petitioner.

Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.

Author: Colins

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 389]

Claude B. Berger, Jr., petitions this Court to reverse an Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated April 29, 1982, affirming a referee's denial of unemployment benefits.

The facts are not in dispute. Petitioner's employer, F. R. Schrieber, hosted an annual Christmas party on December 23, 1981. The party was held at a local hotel on a regular work day and the employees were paid for a full day's work by the employer. While at the party the petitioner was seen giving another employee, who was underage, his driver's license so that the other employee could obtain alcoholic beverages. After the incident, Mr. Berger admitted that he gave his driver's license to the underage employee for that purpose.

The record also indicates that the employer had approximately 87-89 minors in his employ and that on the day of the party he had expressly requested that the management of the hotel check the age cards of all employees being served alcohol so that the company would not be responsible, in any fashion, for supplying liquor to minors.

Petitioner, in a brief totally devoid of any cited authority, argues that such acts cannot be considered "willful misconduct" within the meaning of Section

[ 80 Pa. Commw. Page 390402]

(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 Petitioner further claims that he should have been warned of the consequences of his conduct prior to any dismissal action. Thus, he would have had to have committed at least two such acts, with at least one warning, before he could have been fired. We do not believe that this is necessary.

This Court has defined "willful misconduct" as that misconduct which

     must evidence (1) the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interest, (2) the deliberate violation of rules, (3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employe, or (4) negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and ...


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.