Appeal, No. 59, March T., 1958, by claimant, from decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-43371-B, in re claim of Frank E. Neumeyer. Decision affirmed.
Forrest G. Schaeffer, with him Edelman & Schaeffer, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 323]
This case involves the rights of a discharged federal employe to unemployment compensation under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law and the Federal Social Security Law.
The claimant had been employed by the United States Postal Department as postmaster at Macungie. After being discharged on October 4, 1955, he made application for unemployment compensation which was denied him by the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee, and the Board of Review.
The Board found that the claimant was discharged "for cause" and that "The basis for the termination of claimant's service from Federal employment were the findings that he expended official funds for clerical hire injudiciously, failed to answer official correspondence and was found to be generally negligent."
Under these facts the board concluded that the claimant was disqualified under section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802. This section provides that "An employe
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 324]
shall be ineligible for compensation for any week ... (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge ... from work for willful misconduct connected with his work ...".
The Regional Controller of the United States Postal Department certified to the Pennsylvania Bureau of Employment Security that the claimant was removed from his position for the reason that he "expended official funds for clerical hire injudiciously. Failed to answer Official correspondence. Inefficiency."
The appellant contends (1) that the certification was not evidence from which the board could make the above findings, and (2) that the findings do not establish "willful misconduct" as ...