Summary
holding that an oyster shucker who occasionally damaged oysters in opening them did not damage the oysters deliberately or with wrongful intent and, thus, was eligible for benefits
Summary of this case from Geslao v. CommonwealthOpinion
September 28, 1951.
November 20, 1951.
Unemployment compensation — Evidence — Credibility of witnesses — Weight of testimony — Inferences — Question for Board — Appellate review — Willful misconduct — Definition — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, the credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the inferences to be drawn from it are for the Unemployment Compensation Board.
2. Findings of fact by the Board, supported by real and substantial competent evidence, are conclusive on appeal: § 510 of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
3. In an unemployment compensation case, it was Held that there was competent evidence to sustain findings of the Board that claimant had not deliberately or with willful intent damaged the property of his employer in the performance of his duties and that he was merely an "unsatisfactory employe", and that these findings did not bring claimant's acts within the definition of willful misconduct within the intent of the Act.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and ARNOLD, JJ. (GUNTHER, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1951, by employer, from order of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated June 8, 1951, Appeal No. B-44-99-I-1029, Decision No. B-22648, in re claim of George Taylor. Order affirmed.
Charles H. Greenberg, with him J. Jerome Katz, for appellant.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, for appellee.
Argued September 28, 1951.
The Referee allowed unemployment compensation as claimed by the employe. This is an appeal by the employer from the order of the Board affirming the decision of the Referee.
These are the salient facts: Claimant was employed by appellant as an oyster shucker on a piecework basis. He had 15 years experience in shucking oysters and was highly efficient in his work; he opened more oysters than any of appellant's other shuckers. In the process he cut some of the oysters thus rendering them unsaleable. The employer considered that the number of damaged oysters was excessive and that the waste was attributable to claimant's speed in his work in his determination to increase his earnings regardless of loss to his employer in unsaleable oysters. The Board found that the employer discharged him because dissatisfied with his work. It was claimant's position that it is impossible to open oysters in quantity without damaging some of them. But he maintained that the waste chargeable to him on this score was not abnormal. Moreover he contended that the oysters damaged by him "were usually those with an irregular configuration, which were practically impossible to open without damaging the contents" and the findings of the Board reflect that view in the language above quoted. On a further finding that "Claimant did not damage the oysters deliberately or with wrongful intent" the Board concluded that the claimant was merely an "unsatisfactory employee" and was not convicted of willful misconduct barring recovery under § 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended May 29, 1945, P. L. 1145, 43 P. S. § 802.
The findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board do not bring claimant's acts within the definition of willful misconduct adopted by us as the intent of the Act in Detterer Unemp. Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Super. 291, 77 A.2d 886. Moreover the findings of the Board are supported by real and substantial competent evidence. The credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony and the inferences to be drawn from it are for the Board. Devlin Unemploy. Compensation Case, 165 Pa. Super. 153, 67 A.2d 639. The findings therefore are conclusive and are binding upon us. Section 510 of the Act, 43 P. S. § 830; Tronieri Unempl. Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Super. 435, 65 A.2d 426; D'Yantone Unemployment Compensation Case, 159 Pa. Super. 15, 46 A.2d 525.
Order affirmed.