In Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267, 501 A.2d 1383 (1985), conflicting testimony concerning the employer's lunch policy was submitted. The referee credited Walter Peak's (Peak) version of the policy, while the Board chose to believe I. Samuels and Son's (Peak's employer) version. In its decision, the Board provided no explanation for the reversal of the referee's credibility determination. On appeal, the claimant argued that pursuant to Treon, the Board was required to provide an explanation for rejecting the referee's credibility determination. Our Supreme Court rejected this argument: Treon involved the board's rejection of a referee's finding based on uncontradicted evidence. Here the evidence was conflicting. Appellant's more general argument disguises an attack on Section 504 of the Act Law... which we have consistently held makes the Board the ultimate finder of fact with power to substitute its judgment for that of its referees on disputed facts. Peak, 509 Pa. at 269-70, 501 A.2d at 1385.