Appeal from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Michael Budzanoski, No. B-116159-B.
Michael Budzanoski, appellant, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 536]
Michael Budzanoski, an unemployment compensation claimant, was employed by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA), as a district president. In May, 1971, appellant was convicted in the Federal District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, on four counts of
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 537]
violating Section 209 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, (known as the Landrum-Griffin Act), 29 U.S.C. § 439 (1970). On February 1, 1972, while his conviction was on appeal, the appellant was appointed to the additional position of wage rate director of the United Mine Workers International Union. On October 24, 1972, the United States Supreme Court denied appellant's petition for certiorari of the record of his conviction. On October 27, 1972, appellant was informed by the United States Department of Justice of the Supreme Court's action and advised that, under the provisions of the Landrum-Griffin Act, he was prohibited from continuing in his positions with the UMWA and the International. On November 1, 1972, appellant was informed by Federal monitors then in charge of the affairs of the UMWA that the salaries of his positions were terminated as of October 27, 1972. Appellant orally informed the International of his decision to cease work as a wage rate director and resigned in writing from his position as district president of the UMWA. Appellant's resignations were at least partly impelled by advice of his counsel that continuance in the jobs would cause him to be subject to criminal penalties.
Appellant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Bureau of Employment Security disapproved the application on the ground that the termination of the appellant's employment was for wilful misconduct.*fn1 Appellant appealed the Bureau's decision and, after hearing, a referee issued his decision holding that the appellant was disqualified, not by reason of wilful misconduct, but on the ground that he had voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn2
[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 538]
From that decision the appellant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The Board affirmed the referee's decision without taking testimony, and that decision was appealed to this Court at No. 437 C.D. 1973. On June 12, 1974, we remanded the record to the Board for further hearing.
Another hearing was conducted by a referee acting as hearing officer for the Board. At that hearing the appellant testified fully as to the facts surrounding the termination of his positions with the UMWA and the International.
On January 29, 1975, the Board issued its decision and order, denying the appellant benefits on the ground that the appellant had voluntarily quit without ...