Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Carol J. Walton, No. B-114071-E.
Frank E. Hahn, Jr., with him James T. Lynn, III, and Obermayer, Rebmann, Maxwell & Hippel, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
David H. Kubert, for intervening appellee.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 381]
Eaton Corporation has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granting benefits to a former employee, Carol J. Walton. Ms. Walton has intervened.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 382]
A history of the proceedings from March 8, 1972, when the Bureau of Employment Security first ruled that Ms. Walton was not entitled to benefits, until August 7, 1975 when this Court remanded the matter to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review for the second time may be found at Unemployment Page 382} Compensation Board of Review and Eaton Corporation v. Carol J. Walton, Appellant, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 47, 343 A.2d 70 (1975). In the case cited we required the Board to provide detailed findings and that it redetermine the case in the light of such findings. The Board then heard oral argument, reconsidered the record and made the following pertinent findings of fact.
1. Claimant was last employed as a programmer by the Eaton Corp. at a final rate of $800 per month and her last day of work was February 16, 1972.
3. On the morning of February 16, 1972, claimant was asked by her supervisor, Mr. Binns, to analyze a program which he had completed. Claimant declined to perform the analysis as requested because she felt that the request made of her was outside the scope of her job description.
4. Claimant discussed with Supervisor Binns her reasons for declining to perform the program analysis, stated that she would not do the assignment, left the supervisor's office and returned to her desk.
5. Supervisor Binns engaged the claimant at her desk in the presence of other office workers and, in a raised voice, rekindled the dispute over the program analysis ...