Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

GERALD A. KRONSTADT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/20/85)

COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


decided: March 20, 1985.

GERALD A. KRONSTADT, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT OF COMPENSATION OF BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT

Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Gerald A. Kronstadt, No. B-224197-B.

COUNSEL

No appearance for petitioner.

William J. Gallagher, with him, Mary Ann Rossi, MacElree, Harvey, Gallagher, O'Donnell & Featherman, Ltd., for intervenor, A R I & S, Inc.

Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Blatt concurs in the result only. Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.

Author: Crumlish

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 319]

Gerald A. Kronstadt appeals an Unemployment Compensation order which sustained a referee's decision denying benefits on the ground that his discharge was for willful misconduct. We affirm.

In December, 1982, Kronstadt, an insurance company claims supervisor, was in California on business for his employer, ARI & S, Inc. While on this trip, he and a California attorney, who did legal work for ARI & S, Inc., agreed to take a vacation together in April, 1983. While gambling on their vacation, the attorney gave $266.00 in cash to Kronstadt. It is undisputed that Kronstadt accepted the money. Kronstadt was subsequently discharged for accepting the cash. The employer had no specific rules regarding the acceptance of money from attorneys.

In this appeal, Kronstadt contends that his behavior does not constitute willful misconduct. We disagree. A finding of willful misconduct requires evidence of

     the wanton and willful disregard of an employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of expected standards of behavior, or negligence manifesting culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or the employee's duties or obligations to the employer.

[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 320]

Affirmed.

Judge Blatt concurs in the result only.

Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.

Order

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 28, 1984, at Decision No. B-224197-B is affirmed.

Disposition

Affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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