Eaton Corp. v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Eaton Corp. v. Commonwealth

406 A.2d 1220, 46 Pa. Commw. 589, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2119

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedOctober 24, 1979

DocketAppeal, No. 2019 C.D. 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 406 A.2d 1220 (Eaton Corp. v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Eaton Corp. v. Commonwealth, 406 A.2d 1220, 46 Pa. Commw. 589, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2119 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge MAcPhaip,

The Eaton Corporation (Employer) appeals the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee and granting benefits to Russel Denshuick (Claimant).

Claimant bad been employed as a production hard-per for approximately seven years prior to his discharge, The Employer indicates that Claimant was discharged for drinking an intoxicating beverage during work hours on April 10, 1978, in violation of company rules.

Upon appeal from an order of the Bureau of Employment Security denying benefits, the referee re[591]*591versed and granted benefits to Claimant. In so doing the referee ruled that the Employer failed to carry his burden of proof that Claimant’s actions constituted willful misconduct.¹

In cases involving allegations of willful misconduct the employer has the burden of proving the employee’s ineligibility for benefits. Gallagher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 599, 388 A.2d 785 (1978). In the instant case the Employer’s evidence consisted of the testimony of its employment manager who had no firsthand knowledge of the alleged incident, and several statements from Employer’s representatives who allegedly did witness the incident but did not appear to testify. The referee admitted the written statements as hearsay evidence. The Claimant testified personally. He said in unequivocal terms that he was not drinking at the time and place indicated by the Employer and that he had never admitted drinking as alleged in one of the written statements admitted as hearsay evidence. Confronted with our oft repeated holding that a finding of fact may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, Kiriluk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 229, 398 A.2d 772 (1979), the referee and the Board concluded correctly that the Employer had failed to meet its burden of proof.

Order affirmed.

[592]*592Order

And Now, this 24th day of October, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 4,1978, granting benefits to Russel Denshuick is hereby affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge MAcPhaip,

The Eaton Corporation (Employer) appeals the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee and granting benefits to Russel Denshuick (Claimant).

Claimant bad been employed as a production hard-per for approximately seven years prior to his discharge, The Employer indicates that Claimant was discharged for drinking an intoxicating beverage during work hours on April 10, 1978, in violation of company rules.

Upon appeal from an order of the Bureau of Employment Security denying benefits, the referee re[591]*591versed and granted benefits to Claimant. In so doing the referee ruled that the Employer failed to carry his burden of proof that Claimant’s actions constituted willful misconduct.¹

In cases involving allegations of willful misconduct the employer has the burden of proving the employee’s ineligibility for benefits. Gallagher v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 599, 388 A.2d 785 (1978). In the instant case the Employer’s evidence consisted of the testimony of its employment manager who had no firsthand knowledge of the alleged incident, and several statements from Employer’s representatives who allegedly did witness the incident but did not appear to testify. The referee admitted the written statements as hearsay evidence. The Claimant testified personally. He said in unequivocal terms that he was not drinking at the time and place indicated by the Employer and that he had never admitted drinking as alleged in one of the written statements admitted as hearsay evidence. Confronted with our oft repeated holding that a finding of fact may not be based solely upon hearsay evidence, Kiriluk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 229, 398 A.2d 772 (1979), the referee and the Board concluded correctly that the Employer had failed to meet its burden of proof.

Order affirmed.

[592]*592Order

And Now, this 24th day of October, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 4,1978, granting benefits to Russel Denshuick is hereby affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 A.2d 1220, 46 Pa. Commw. 589, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2119, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eaton-corp-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack