Unemployment compensation — Wilful Misconduct — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Violation of constitutional rights — Findings of fact — Substantial evidence — Credibility — Violation of rules.
1. An employe is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when discharged for wilful misconduct which is the wanton and wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of rules, a disregard of expected behavior standards or negligence manifesting culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or the employe's duties. [341]
2. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof prevailed below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated or findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. [341]
3. In an unemployment compensation case questions of credibility are for the factfinder, not the reviewing court. [341]
4. An employe who delivers property of his employer to an unauthorized person in violation of the employer's policy is properly found to be guilty of wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of unemployment compensation benefits when discharged as a result of such conduct. [341]
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISH, JR., February 1, 1982:
Winder appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits. We affirm.
Winder was employed by Redman Industries as a receiver. He and a fellow employee were to deliver damaged company doors to an auction. Enroute they made an unauthorized stop at the home of the co-worker's relative and delivered two of the doors, resulting in the dismissal of Winder and his co-worker for theft of company goods.
The referee denied benefits holding that Winder's conduct constituted "willful misconduct" under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We agree.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
This Court has defined willful misconduct as: the wanton and willful disregard of an employer's interest, a deliberate violation of rules, a disregard of expected behavior standards or negligence manifesting culpability, wrongful intent, evil design or intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employe's duties and obligations.
Serban v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commw. 147, 150, 370 A.2d 755, 756 (1977).
Our scope of review, where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed below, is limited to a determination of whether there was an error of law, a violation of constitutional rights or whether the referee's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Maxwell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 604, 423 A.2d 430 (1980).
Here Winder contends that the referee ignored credible and competent testimony that Winder knew nothing of the theft. However, as we so often said, the resolution of credibility is an issue for the referee. Remaly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commw. 551, 423 A.2d 814 (1980). Moreover, because Winder knew of the company policy that sales of goods to employees were only made on certain days, and this was not one of those days, the employer had a "right to expect a higher standard of behavior" in this situation. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 11 Pa. Commw. 535, 538, 314 A.2d 528,529 (1974).
Affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-180374, dated January 30, 1980, is affirmed.
Judge PALLADINO did not participate in the decision in this case.