BOR Decision (1996)

Claimant was discharged after numerous telephone calls originating from house where he lived were billed to the employer. Reversing R/E, BOR finds that employer failed to meet its burden of proof of rule violation. Claimant denied making the calls, and only hearsay supported employer's claim that his stepson could not have made them. Cites Merisme v. Bd of Appeals for rule that uncorroborated heasay is not substantial evidence. BR-67220 Advocate: Vida Berkowitz, private practitioner