IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 James Balough, Jr., 
 : 
 Petitioner  
 : : 
 v. 
 : No. 1827 C.D. 2001 
 : SUBMITTED:  November 2, 2001 
 Unemployment Compensation  
 : 
 Board of Review, 
 : 
 Respondent 
 : 
 BEFORE: HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Judge 
 HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
 HONORABLE EMIL E. NARICK, Senior Judge 
 OPINION NOT REPORTED 
 MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 BY SENIOR JUDGE NARICK 
   
 FILED: January 18, 2002 
 James Balough, Jr. (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the 
 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming a referee's 
 determination that Claimant is ineligible for compensation pursuant to Section 
 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). 

   We affirm. 

 Claimant was employed as a weather observer by Keystone Weather 
 Service (Employer) from October 1, 1999 until his last day of work on February 4,  2001.  Before hiring Claimant, Employer inquired as to whether he had plans to 
 start his own weather business.  Claimant indicated that, in the past, he had had 
 such plans but currently desired to work for someone else as an observer. 
 Employer hired Claimant as a weather observer. 

 Approximately five or six months after hiring Claimant, Employer 
 learned that Claimant and another employee were discussing starting their own 
 business which would compete with Employer.  Employer advised Claimant that 
 he could remain employed until Claimant's business became listed as a qualified 
 vendor capable of soliciting bids and as long as he did nothing to harm Employer. 
 Subsequently Employer learned that Claimant's business had become 
 listed as a qualified vendor that could compete with Employer and that Claimant 
 planned to do so while he remained on Employer's payroll.  Employer also 
 discovered Claimant told a co-worker that he could make some calls to friends at 
 the United States Department of Labor and the Federal Aviation Administration 
 that would cause Employer to lose a certain contract, thus allowing Claimant's 
 business to bid on it.  Claimant also stated that he was willing to bid low enough 
 and lose money in order to get Employer off that contract.  Consequently, 
 Employer discharged Claimant for operating a competing business while still 
 employed and for threatening damage to Employer's operations in the process. 

 Claimant was granted benefits at the local office of employment 
 security (OES) and Employer appealed.  The referee reversed the OES and 
 Claimant appealed.  The board affirmed the referee's reversal.  On appeal to this 
 Court, Claimant argues that the Board erred in denying benefits based on willful 
 misconduct because the record does not support a determination that he 
 deliberately violated Employer's rules. 

 What constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law reviewable 
 by this Court. 

   Here, Claimant charges that Employer is contesting his right to 
 compensation on the basis of a work rule violation, and thus, it is Employer's 
 burden to prove the existence of a reasonable work rule and Claimant's violation of 
 it.  County of Luzerne v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 611 
 A.2d 1335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).  If the employer meets its initial burden, the burden 
 then shifts to the claimant to prove good cause or that the rule was not reasonable. 
 Id. 

 However, contrary to Claimant's assertion, our review reveals that 
 Employer discharged Claimant not for violation of a specific written work rule, but 
 for operating a competing business while remaining employed and for threatening 
 harm to Employer's business in the process.  Board Finding of Fact No. 11.  If 
 supported by substantial record evidence, the Board's findings of fact are 
 conclusive on appeal.  Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977).  This Court has addressed the issue of an 
 employee starting his own business that was the same as that of his employer.  In 
 Jordan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 547 A.2d 811 (Pa. 
 Cmwlth. 1988), we held that such activity is willful misconduct under the Law. 
 The Board found that Claimant was on the qualified vendors list and, 
 not only could compete with Employer, but had plans to do so.  Board Findings of 
 Fact Nos. 7 and 8.  While Claimant now attempts to argue that he could not have 
 competed with Employer because Employer did not bid on the part-time contracts 
 Claimant bid on, Claimant cites no record support for that assertion.  Our review of 
 the record has also not found any support for it; therefore, we may not consider this 
 claim.  Dollar Bank v. Swartz, 540 Pa. 369, 657 A.2d 1242 (1995) (record below 
 did not contain the facts necessary to evaluate an argument made for the first time 
 on appeal with the result that the argument may not be addressed by this Court). 

 The facts established by the Board demonstrate that Claimant's 
 actions were in willful disregard of Employer's interests and were also below the 
 standard of behavior Employer had a right to expect from Claimant, its employee. 
 Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81, 351 
 A.2d 631 (1976).  The Board properly denied benefits under Section 402(e) of the 
 Law. 

 Accordingly, we affirm. 
                                                         
 EMIL E. NARICK, Senior Judge