Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission in case of Coy Gibson v. Department of Public Welfare, No. 1900.
Richard P. Perna, for petitioner.
Robert E. Kelly, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert B. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
An order of the Pennsylvania Civil Service Commission (Commission) sustaining a decision of the Department of Public Welfare (Appellee/Appointing Authority) finding just cause for the dismissal of Coy Gibson (Appellant) from his Civil Service position with the Commonwealth is the subject of this appeal.
Appellant was an employee of the Philadelphia State Hospital with eight years of experience in its power plant facility. During that period, Appellant was promoted through the ranks from a laborer to a Utility Plant Supervisor I (UPS I). As a UPS I, Appellant was responsible for the daily operation of the plant and in charge of its engineers and firemen. He was dismissed from that position for the stated reasons of incompetence, inability to cope with managerial responsibilities, and poor work performance.
Appellant appealed the Appointing Authority's decision to the Commission alleging that his removal was motivated by racially discriminatory and other nonmerit reasons and was, therefore, without just cause. After a hearing, the Commission found that there was no evidence of dismissal for non-merit reasons*fn1 and
made the following conclusions of law: "(1) Appellant was properly removed under Section 807 of the Civil Service Act [Act]*fn2 . . . , [and] (2) [t]he [A]ppointing [A]uthority did not violate Section 905(a) [sic] of the Civil Service Act*fn3 . . . by discriminating against [A]ppellant."
Appellant now brings his appeal to us.
It is argued that the Commission's findings and conclusions are not supported by the record and that Appellant was denied the right to fully develop his case below. Appellant contends that none of the Commission's findings of fact, alone or in combination, support its conclusion that he was unable to perform the duties of a UPS I. It is also asserted that the Commission erred in ...