IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

                     Terry Collins, : 
                         Petitioner : 
                                    : 
                                 v. : No. 561 C.D. 2004 
                                    : Submitted: September 17, 2004 
    Unemployment Compensation Board : 
                         of Review, : 
                         Respondent : 

     BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge 
             HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge 
             HONORABLE CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge 

     OPINION NOT REPORTED 
     MEMORANDUM OPINION 
     BY SENIOR JUDGE MIRARCHI FILED: December 10, 2004 

Terry Collins (Claimant), appearing pro se, petitions this Court to review an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Section 402(e) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which his or her unemployment is due to discharge for willful misconduct connected with his or her employment. We affirm.

The Board made the following findings of fact. Claimant was employed as a salesperson by Smethport Auto Parts, Inc. (Employer) from September 1, 1989 until October 28, 2003. When a new manager assumed duties at the store in December 2002, he met with the salespersons and requested that they telephone their orders into the store twice daily. Claimant had always placed his orders directly in the store computer prior to regular business hours and was not pleased with the new procedure. The manager informed Claimant that if he did not comply with the new procedure, he would not be of use as a road salesperson. For one, the manager noticed that when Claimant was in the store placing his orders, he would be missing his first sales stop. Further, the manager’s new system worked better than the previous system and speeded up deliveries. The manager also discovered that when Claimant personally placed his orders in the store before regular hours, all parts were not being invoiced, violating Employer’s policy and leading Employer to lose money. In August or September 2003, the situation came to the point where the manager took Claimant’s store key away from him and also removed his name from the computer system. Despite this, Claimant continued to place orders with the counter person at the store and even used another employee’s code to place the orders into the computer, although he did place some orders by telephone. Claimant discontinued contact with the manager, would speak to him only when necessary, and believed that the new system was difficult for him as it "was rough for him to call in orders." Board’s Finding of Fact No. 15. Employer permitted its employees to purchase parts from the store at a discount. Claimant owned a repair business in addition to his duties as a salesperson. The manager learned that Claimant would purchase parts from the store at a discount and resell them to his customers for less than the store’s retail price. Because Claimant continued to refuse to follow the manager’s directives regarding the placement of sales and because Claimant was reselling store parts at a price below that which the public would have to pay at the store, Employer discharged Claimant.

Claimant appealed the denial of unemployment compensation benefits by the Altoona Service Center. The referee, after finding the above facts, affirmed, concluding that Claimant’s actions amounted to a disregard of the behavior that an employer has a right to expect of an employee. Therefore, the referee determined that Claimant was discharged because of willful misconduct and thus ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Law. The Board affirmed by adopting the referee’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and this petition for review followed.

This Court’s scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Evans, Portnoy & Quinn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 665 A.2d 548 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). In unemployment compensation cases, the Board is the ultimate finder of fact. Griffith Chevrolet-Olds, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 597 A.2d 215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). If a petitioner fails to challenge the Board’s factual findings, however, they are conclusive on appeal. Campbell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

Claimant has not challenged the factual findings of the Board, as summarized above, and thus they are conclusive for purposes of our review. Instead, Claimant argues, throughout separate sections of his brief and without reference to legal authority, that (1) he was threatened with discharge by his manager if he did not talk to him, (2) he was discharged for being a better salesperson than the others before, and (3) he never missed a day’s work. Claimant provides no further specifics, no references to the record, and no legal argument establishing that the Board erred by determining that he was discharged for willful misconduct under the unchallenged facts found by the Board. Arguments that are not properly developed in a brief so as to allow for meaningful appellate review are deemed waived. Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 707 A.2d 636 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). Clearly, Claimant has not developed any argument allowing for meaningful appellate review, and therefore any discernable issue is waived. Further, even if Claimant was threatened with discharge for not being willing to communicate with his supervisor, clearly no ground for relief is evident.

Willful misconduct has been defined as:

(1) the wanton and willful disregard of the employer’s interests, (2) the deliberate violation of rules, (3) the disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from his employee, or (4) negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional or substantial disregard for the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties and obligations.

An employer notifies its employees of its interests and standards of behavior by promulgating rules; and by doing so, the employer shows what it considers to be willful misconduct... . If the employer proves the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule and the fact of its violation, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove that he [or she] had good cause for violating the employer's rule.

Here, the Board found that Employer’s manager had instituted a new policy, Claimant was aware of that policy, and Claimant consistently violated the policy. Moreover, Claimant did not establish good cause for his violation of the policy. These findings are unchallenged and support the Board’s conclusion that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct. Moreover, the Board correctly determined that Claimant’s conduct surrounding his refusal to fully comply with the manager’s policy and his resale of Employer’s parts below retail value demonstrated that Claimant’s behavior amounted to a disregard of the behavior that an employer has a right to expect of an employee.

Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

____________________________________
CHARLES P. MIRARCHI, JR., Senior Judge