Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Wayne F. Wilkins, No. B-228420.
Jane Muller-Peterson, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Michael Q. Davis, Campbell, Spitzer, Davis & Turgeon, for intervenor, Stambaugh's Air Service, Inc.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 368]
Wayne F. Wilkins, Jr. appeals an order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 369]
Review upholding a referee's decision that Wilkins' acts in repairing an aircraft constituted willful misconduct under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 43 P.S. § 802(e), thereby disqualifying him for benefits. We affirm.
Wilkins worked as a mechanic for Stambaugh Air Service, Inc. (Air Service), a company which overhauls aircraft for the U.S. Navy. On October 31, 1983, Air Service discharged Wilkins for actions which allegedly resulted in a safety hazard and affected the aircraft's ability to function correctly. The record establishes that during Wilkins' three years of employment, Air Service had repeatedly warned him about his unsafe work and demoted him three times because of his poor quality of work.
Wilkins contends that the board's key findings are not supported by competent evidence because they are based on hearsay evidence, properly objected to at the hearing, and that the board abused its discretion in denying his request for reconsideration.
Competent Evidence of Willful Misconduct
The first issue we must address is whether there is substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the board's findings. Hearsay evidence, offered against objections, as here, cannot by itself support a finding. Even where there is no objection, hearsay evidence can support a finding only if it is corroborated. Walker v. ...