# Miceli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 17, 1988 · 519 Pa. 515

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746730

## Case

- **Full name:** Frank D. MICELI, Charles Minnich and Leander Krist, Token Claimants, Appellants, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee, and Quaker Oats Company, Intervenor
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 17, 1988
- **Citations:** 519 Pa. 515; 549 A.2d 113; 1988 Pa. LEXIS 248
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Papadakos, Stout, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746730

## Opinion text

FLAHERTY, Justice,
concurring.
I join the majority, but write separately to further address the question of whether sabotage was adequately shown to have occurred in the Quaker Oats Company manufacturing facilities. Although the record comes close to providing sufficient support for the Board’s finding of sabotage, I agree with the majority that, under the substantial evidence standard, it falls short of the proof required.
Our majority opinion is not to be construed, however, as requiring proof of the identity of particular employees who committed acts of sabotage, as proof of the identity of individual saboteurs is not necessary to establish that sabotage has in fact occurred. By its very nature, sabotage is committed in a surreptitious manner, and virtually never committed openly for management to observe. Further, employees are understandably reluctant to identify saboteurs, due to the fear of reprisals from co-workers. Management is justified in closing a facility when its operations are being subverted by employees, regardless of whether'the particular employees responsible therefor can be identified.
The Quaker Oats Company argued, with regard to the alleged suspicious incidents of sabotage, that it is very “unlikely” that they were caused by normal machine breakdowns, considering the frequency at which they occurred during the relevant time frame. If testimony had been presented to compare the exact frequency of breakdowns with that found before the labor difficulties arose, or if testimony had established with greater certainty the causes of certain breakdowns, a contrary decision by this Court would be warranted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9746730. Public record. Not legal advice.