Lee v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Lee v. Commonwealth

415 A.2d 456, 52 Pa. Commw. 171, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1508

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 11, 1980

DocketAppeal, No. 1087 C.D. 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 415 A.2d 456 (Lee 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

Lee v. Commonwealth, 415 A.2d 456, 52 Pa. Commw. 171, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1508 (Pa. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Thomas R. Lee (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied him benefits after a finding that he was discharged from his employment for willful misconduct.¹

[173]*173The claimant was employed as a painter by the Mnratone Company, Inc. (employer). In December 1978 an incident occurred at a work site which led to his discharge. He claims that his discharge was actually the result of a law suit which he and other employees had instituted against the employer and he argues that the referee’s findings to the contrary were based solely on hearsay. The employer maintains, however, that the claimant refused a work assignment which was within his duties and was therefore discharged.

In a discharge case based upon willful misconduct, the burden is upon the employer to prove such conduct. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 511, 349 A.2d 496 (1976). Here, however, the employer’s only witness at the referee’s hearing was its president who, while testifying to the circumstances leading up to the claimant’s discharge, frankly admitted that he had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged misconduct.² The claimant’s case consisted only of his own [174]*174testimony to the effect that he did not refuse the work assignment.

While it is the province of the fact-finder, of course, to resolve issues of credibility, it is nevertheless true that the findings must be based upon substantial competent evidence. The testimony of the employer here, however, was clearly hearsay, and being also without corroboration by any competent evidence in the record, it cannot support a finding of fact and the employer’s burden of proof was not thereby sustained. See Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976).

The order of the Board will be reversed.

Order

And Now, this 11th day of June, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board for computation of benefits.

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

Opinion by

Judge Blatt,

Thomas R. Lee (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied him benefits after a finding that he was discharged from his employment for willful misconduct.¹

[173]*173The claimant was employed as a painter by the Mnratone Company, Inc. (employer). In December 1978 an incident occurred at a work site which led to his discharge. He claims that his discharge was actually the result of a law suit which he and other employees had instituted against the employer and he argues that the referee’s findings to the contrary were based solely on hearsay. The employer maintains, however, that the claimant refused a work assignment which was within his duties and was therefore discharged.

In a discharge case based upon willful misconduct, the burden is upon the employer to prove such conduct. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 511, 349 A.2d 496 (1976). Here, however, the employer’s only witness at the referee’s hearing was its president who, while testifying to the circumstances leading up to the claimant’s discharge, frankly admitted that he had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged misconduct.² The claimant’s case consisted only of his own [174]*174testimony to the effect that he did not refuse the work assignment.

While it is the province of the fact-finder, of course, to resolve issues of credibility, it is nevertheless true that the findings must be based upon substantial competent evidence. The testimony of the employer here, however, was clearly hearsay, and being also without corroboration by any competent evidence in the record, it cannot support a finding of fact and the employer’s burden of proof was not thereby sustained. See Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976).

The order of the Board will be reversed.

Order

And Now, this 11th day of June, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board for computation of benefits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

415 A.2d 456, 52 Pa. Commw. 171, 1980 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1508, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack