Sauer v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.

531 A.2d 1174, 110 Pa. Commw. 103, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2524
CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedOctober 6, 1987
DocketAppeal, 818 C.D. 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 531 A.2d 1174 (Sauer v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.) 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
Sauer v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV., 531 A.2d 1174, 110 Pa. Commw. 103, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2524 (Pa. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

Opinion by

Senior Judge Barbieri,

In this unemployment compensation case, James Sauer, Claimant, appeals here an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying his claim for unemployment compensation benefits and finding him liable for a fault overpayment recoupment. The Board found that he is ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 PS. §802(e), due to his discharge for willful misconduct and that he is liable for a fault payment recoupment pursuant to Section 804(a) of the Law, 43 PS. §874(a), due to his providing false information on his application for benefits. We shall affirm.

*105 Sauer was last employed as a security guard by Federated Security (Employer) from December, 1983, through July 14, 1984. On July 14, 1984, he was terminated, according to the Employer, laid off according to Sauer, from his job as a security guard. Sauer was previously warned by the Employer to conform to the Employers policy of wearing a complete uniform while on duty and to properly perform his duties as assigned by the Employer. When he filled out his initial application for benefits with the Office of Employment Security (OES), he certified that he had been laid off by the Employer due to lack of work. As a result, he collected and cashed two benefit checks, totaling $130.00, for the weeks ending October 20 and 27, 1984. After receiving the Employers separation information, the OES determined that he was ineligible for benefits under 43 PS. §802(e), due to willful misconduct, and under 43 PS. §801(c), due to his failure to make a proper claim for benefits. The OES also determined that he had received a fault overpayment subject to recoupment under 43 PS. §874(a). Sauer appealed the OES determination to a referee who, after a hearing, upheld the OES and issued a decision finding him ineligible for benefits under 43 PS. §§801(c) and 802(e) and subject to a fault overpayment recoupment under 43 P.S. §874(a) in the amount of $130.00. On Sauers appeal of the referees decision, the Board affirmed.

In his appeal to this Court, Sauer contends that (1) necessary findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) his conduct does not amount to willful misconduct as used in 43 P.S. §802(e); and (3) he did not provide false information to the OES on his application for benefits and is not subject to a fault overpayment recoupment under 43 P.S. §874(a). Of course, our scope of review in unemployment compensation appeals is limited by Section 704 of the Administrative Agency *106 Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704, to determining whether necessary findings are supported by substantial evidence, an error of law committed, whether the procedural provisions of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §§501-508, have been complied with, or whether any constitutional rights of the claimant have been violated. Saxton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 636, 455 A.2d 765 (1983).

Sauer initially contends that several of the Boards findings, that it adopted from the referees decision, are not supported by substantial evidence. The sole finding of the Board that he directly challenges is finding 10, which provides:

10. The claimants [Sauers] services were terminated by the employer for continued violations of'employer policy after warnings.

His sole contention is that the sole reason the Employer terminated him was due to the lack of work resulting from the loss of two contracts, one with the Sheraton Motor Inn and the other with Station Square Parking. There is no dispute that Sauer was called by the Employers secretary and told to turn in his uniform. In Torsky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 642, 474 A.2d 1207 (1984), we noted that an employer need not use words like “discharged” or “fired” in order to effectuate a firing, but that a firing can be inferred from such language as “pick up your pay,” “turn in your key,” “pull your time card,” “there’s the door,” and the language used here, “turn in your uniform.” Id. at 645-46, 474 A.2d 1209. See also Caperila Unemployment Compensation Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 357, 359, 188 A.2d 759, 760 (1963). While Sauer points to a comment by the secretary that the loss of the two contracts was involved, that does not deprive finding 10 of support by substantial *107 evidence. The Employers president testified that the loss of the Sheraton and Station Square contracts was involved in Sauers discharge because Sauers sloppy performance was a factor in losing those contracts. The secretary’s statement as testified to by Sauer, therefore, must be viewed in light of the record as a whole and not in isolation. Additionally, the Employer’s witnesses testified that Sauers disciplinary infractions regarding being out of uniform and substandard job performance were an on-going problem that occurred on almost a day-today basis. N.T. (11/29/84) at 7-10. Viewing the record as a whole, we are satisfied that finding 10 is supported by substantial evidence.

Sauer next contends that his conduct does not constitute willful misconduct as used in 43 P.S. §802(e) rendering him ineligible for benefits. We disagree. Our Supreme Court has defined “willful misconduct,” as used in 43 P.S. §802(e), as being, among other things, a disregard by the employee of the employer’s interests, a deliberate disregard of the employers rules, or a disregard of the standards of behavior that an employer has a right to expect of an employee. Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81, 351 A.2d 631 (1976). See also Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973). The employer bears the burden of proving that an employee was discharged for willful misconduct so as to render the employee ineligible for benefits. Comp v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 577, 478 A.2d 503 (1984). Whether an employee’s conduct amounts to “willful misconduct” as used in 43 PS. §802(e) is a question of law reviewable by an appellate court based upon the facts as found by the Board. Sheaffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 280, 457 *108 A.2d 1037 (1983).

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

Related

Bishop Carroll High School v. Commonwealth
557 A.2d 1141 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
531 A.2d 1174, 110 Pa. Commw. 103, 1987 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sauer-v-un-comp-bd-of-rev-pacommwct-1987.