IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
             Ronald Crawford, : 
                   Petitioner : 
                              : 
                           v. : No. 1160 C.D. 2004 
                              : SUBMITTED: October 15, 2004 
    Unemployment Compensation : 
             Board of Review, : 
                   Respondent : 

      BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge 
      HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge 
      HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge 

      OPINION NOT REPORTED 
      MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 
      JUDGE LEADBETTER FILED: December 3, 2004 

Ronald L. Crawford petitions for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the referee’s decision denying benefits for willful misconduct pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.1 Crawford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that he withheld information in 2000 when questioned about his knowledge of incidents pertaining to a co-worker’s complaint of sexual harassment. Crawford also contends that no testimony established the precise dates on which he engaged in the sexual horseplay to which he eventually admitted and therefore any wrongful behavior may have been too remote in time from the date of his discharge to provide a basis for denying benefits. Discerning no merit in these contentions, we affirm.

Crawford worked as a pressman for Cadmus Communications Corporation from July of 1985 until Cadmus discharged him on December 16, 2003 for having engaged in immoral or disorderly behavior in the workplace and withholding information concerning this behavior as he either witnessed it or participated in it. Cadmus considered these infractions as Type C violations, which under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) constitute grounds for immediate discharge. Specifically, Cadmus considered Crawford’s refusal to disclose information a violation of rule C-1, which prohibits "disobedience, insubordination, or willful refusal to carry out reasonable assignment or instruction" and considered the sexual horseplay a violation of rule C-9, which prohibits "disorderly or immoral conduct in the plant."

Crawford applied for unemployment compensation. Based on Crawford’s telephone interview with a Service Center employee and the absence of any detailed information from Cadmus as to the circumstances leading up to Crawford’s discharge, the Service Center deemed Crawford eligible to receive compensation. Cadmus appealed and the appointed referee convened a hearing. Following receipt of testimony on behalf of each party, the referee denied Crawford’s claim. In his decision, the referee stated:

The claimant admitted to incidents in which he and his coworkers engaged in what could be perceived as sexually suggestive horseplay, including putting each others hands down the others trousers, and making certain remarks such as "you have a cute ass." Although the CBA does not define immoral or disorderly behavior in the plant, the Referee believes that such conduct, given its ordinary dictionary definitions, would fall within one or the other category (immoral or disorderly). Accordingly, by the claimant’s admission that he voluntarily engaged in these activities, the discharge, which followed must render the claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.

Based upon the above determination, it is unnecessary to also address the employer’s other contention, that the claimant’s negative response to the question as posed in August of 2000 interview constituted insubordination.

The Board found that Crawford lied when he denied knowledge of workplace misconduct in 2000 and concluded:

The employer has rules against engaging in disorderly or immoral conduct, but does not define what is disorderly or immoral conduct. The policy is reasonable. The claimant was or should have been aware of the employer’s policy. The employer questioned the claimant in 2000 as to whether he had witnessed horseplay and immoral conduct in the employer’s workplace. The claimant denied having witnessed any horseplay or immoral conduct. The employer warned claimant if it later found he had been untruthful or not forthcoming he would be discharged. In November 2003, the employer became aware of a sexual harassment complaint filed by an employee, naming claimant and other employees. The claimant was interviewed and denied all of the allegations. During this interview, the claimant admitted that he had not been forthcoming during the 2000 interview because he had not been named and "I kept my mouth shut. Why should I get more people in trouble?" The claimant had been warned he would be discharged if the employer later discovered that the claimant had not been forthcoming. The claimant is not found to have good cause or justification for not being forthcoming at the 2000 employer interview. The Board finds the claimant’s failure to be forthcoming and his denial of having witnessed such activities in the employer’s workplace is beneath the standard of behavior that the employer had the right to expect from the claimant.

The Board is the ultimate fact-finder and its findings are conclusive if the record, examined as a whole and considered in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, contains substantial evidence in support thereof. DeRiggi v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 856 A.2d 253, 255 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Our review of the testimony reveals ample evidence to support the Board’s finding that Crawford withheld information concerning inappropriate behavior in the workplace. Cadmus’s Human Resource Manager, Richard Cory, testified that based on sexual harassment claims filed in 2000 and 2003 the company undertook investigations. Cory testified that when questioned in 2000, Crawford denied having witnessed any such activity but upon later questioning in 2003, he admitted that he kept his mouth shut so that others would not get in trouble. Cory further testified that during the 2003 interview, when questioned as to specific acts that occurred in 1999 Crawford admitted to sexual comments and touching between himself and a coworker. N.T. at 16. Specifically Crawford testified that, while working in the tight space surrounding the rollers in the pressroom he "brushed past" a coworker who was naked below the waist, commenting as he did so "nice ass," and the same coworker "put his hands down my pants," which Crawford described as just joking around. N.T. at 36-41.

Whether Crawford’s failure to disclose what he knew about inappropriate behavior in the workplace amounts to willful misconduct justifying the denial of benefits is a question of law over which we exercise plenary review. DeRiggi, 856 A.2d at 255-56. In determining when an employee is under an obligation to disclose workplace misconduct, our court recognizes that an employee has no duty to gratuitously report a coworker’s misconduct. See Groover v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 579 A.2d 1017, 1019-1020 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). However, an employer may rightfully expect an honest answer to a question posed during the investigation of matters that directly affect the workplace. See DeRiggi, 856 A.2d at 256. Crawford’s misrepresentation that he was unaware of workplace misconduct when questioned in 2000 constitutes willful misconduct.

Inasmuch as the Board did not base its decision on Crawford’s admitted participation in indecent behavior, we need not address his contention that these acts were not sufficiently proximate to the time of his discharge.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of compensation benefits.

________________________________________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge

1. Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) states that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work.