Case Name: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edward Walto, Appellant
Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1975-11-07
Citations: 21 Pa. Commw. 545
Docket Number: Appeal, No. 297 C.D. 1975
Parties: Unemployment Compensation Board of Review of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edward Walto, Appellant.
Judges: to Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Reports
Volume: 21
Pages: 545–547

Head Matter:
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review of The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Edward Walto, Appellant.
Submitted on briefs October 10, 1975,
to Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three.
John J. D’Angelo, with him Bank, Minehart & D’Angelo, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
November 7, 1975:

Opinion:
Opinion by
Judge Kramer,
This is an/appeal by Edward Walto from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which denied him benefits. The issue in this case is whether the conduct which caused Walto to be dismissed from his job constituted willful misconduct. We hold that it did and affirm.
Walto was employed as a doorman by Society Hill Towers, Inc. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On March 22, 1974 Walto was discharged for various derelictions of duty, including (a) appearing for work with alcohol on his breath, (b) refusing to promptly admit tenants through the door which was in his charge, and (e) conducting himself toward a female tenant in an improper manner. The Board held that Walto's conduct constituted willful misconduct and rendered him ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Walto's sole argument in his appeal to this Court is that the Board erred by concluding that his conduct constituted willful misconduct. This argument has no merit. Walto's conduct evidenced both a wanton and willful disregard for his employer's interests, and a flagrant disregard of the standard of behavior which his employer could rightfully expect of him. The conduct falls squarely within the definition of willful misconduct. The Board did not err by concluding that Walto's conduct constituted willful misconduct and rendered him ineligible for benefits.
We therefore
Order
And Now this 7th day of November, 1975, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated February 4, 1975, denying benefits to Edward Walto, is hereby affirmed.
. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802 (e). •
. Kentucky Fried Chicken of Altoona, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 309 A.2d 165 (1973).