Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Matthew M. Fondel, No. B-253878.
Matthew Marion Fondel, petitioner, for himself.
Gary L. Kelley, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 125]
Matthew Marion Fondel (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying benefits to Petitioner for willful misconduct pursuant to section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 43 P.S. § 802(e). We affirm.
Petitioner was employed as an electronics engineer by the Naval Air Development Center (Employer). On May 14, 1986, the Deputy Director for the Center (Petitioner's superior) directed his secretary to arrange a meeting with Petitioner. Petitioner told the Director's secretary that he wanted representation at the meeting. The Director immediately called Petitioner to inform him that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss Petitioner's work product and that he was not entitled to representation. The Director then asked Petitioner to attend, but Petitioner responded by stating "Are you hard of hearing?" and refused to attend. The Director then issued an order to Petitioner to attend, and Petitioner hung up the telephone.
On May 15, 1986, the Director again contacted Petitioner and ordered him to attend the meeting. Petitioner responded with abusive language and hung up the telephone. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner was discharged for refusal to comply with a reasonable order of his superior.*fn2 Both the referee and the Board denied benefits
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 126]
on the basis of willful misconduct, and this appeal followed.
Petitioner contends that the Board's findings of fact are not supported by substantial evidence in the record. In addition, he contends that the Board may not deny him benefits for willful misconduct because he is a federal employee and because the Board made no finding that his discharge would promote the efficiency of the federal service.
Our scope of review is limited to whether the Board has committed an error of law or violated any constitutional right, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section ...