Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Joseph Pilchesky, No. B-131067.
Richard A. Brown, with him Charles Witaconis and Ronald H. Skubecz, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 201]
According to the appellant's testimony the issue of whether his discharge from employment by the Department of Public Works of the City of Scranton was proper under the terms of the then union contract has been the subject of a grievance procedure resolved against him and in favor of the employer. The issue of whether his discharge was the result of insubordination, i.e., failure to follow his orders, has been the subject of decisions by the Bureau of Employment Security, a referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) after a rehearing conducted by the referee then serving as the Board's Hearing Officer. All of these decisions have been in favor of the employer and against appellant. He appeals to this Court challenging the decision of the Board on two grounds:
I. Did the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review err as a matter of law in not requiring testimony essential to its determination of appellant's claim for benefits?
II. Did the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review err as a matter of law in determining that the conduct for which claimant
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 202]
was discharged constituted 'willful misconduct'?
We affirm the Board's decision.
We will deal with the second issue first. This record is unusually extensive for this type of case. Appellant's testimony before the referee covers approximately 18 typed pages and approximately 10 typed pages at the rehearing before the Board Hearing Officer. The employer's testimony covers approximately three typed pages. We have read and reread the record in view of the serious charges appellant has leveled at all who take a position contrary to his in this matter. He accuses his union of conspiring with the employer against him and states that its officers "are the lowest that you can find in any union." He states that the employer's witness is a liar and ...