Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Linda Patton, No. B-242543 and in case of Annette McGuill, No. B-242544.
Domenic A. Bellisario, for petitioners.
James K. Bradley, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Doyle, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 223]
Annette McGuill and Linda Patton (Claimants) petition for review of the two orders of the Unemployment
[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 224]
Compensation Board of Review (Board)*fn1 denying each of them benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn2 We affirm.
Claimants were both employed by Hills Department Store (Employer) in Monroeville, Pennsylvania. Patton headed the men's department in the store, while McGuill occupied the same position in the boys' department. On April 3, 1985, Employer's soft lines manager, Wayne Jackson, authorized Patton to mark down in price Michael Jackson-style men's wear. Patton had McGuill help her mark down the men's wear they believed manager Jackson had authorized them to mark down. Patton set aside 19 items from the marked-down merchandise to purchase for her own use; McGuill did likewise with ten items. Jackson told Claimants to stop marking down the men's wear because he saw them marking down items that were not in the Michael Jackson
[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 225]
line and which Claimants had not been authorized to mark down.
Claimants ceased the mark-down process at this point. Before leaving work, however, Claimants purchased the marked-down items they had set aside. None of the items purchased at the marked-down price were among those Claimants were authorized to mark down. Both Claimants were terminated on April 6, 1985 for purchasing these items at the reduced price while knowing that they were unauthorized discounts.
Claimants applied for benefits and the Office of Employment Security (OES) determined that Claimants were ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Act (willful misconduct). The referee and the Board both ...