Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of George D. Bechtel, No. B146640-B.
Robert D. Kodak, with him Knupp & Andrews, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Edward G. Biester, Jr., Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 458]
George D. Bechtel (Claimant) has been denied benefits under the provisions of Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 752.*fn1
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 459]
Prior to being terminated on January 18, 1977, Claimant had worked sixteen years for his employer as a truck driver and warehouseman. He was dismissed as an employee because his license to operate a motor vehicle was suspended for one year following his conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This was his second arrest for that offense. On the first occasion, his employer permitted him to work as a warehouseman for the duration of the suspension. Although Claimant was led to believe that he would receive similar consideration from his employer on this occasion, instead his employer dismissed him and told him to seek unemployment benefits because the employer could not "work it out" this time.
The only issue presented by Claimant is whether the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review erred as a matter of law when it decided that Claimant should be denied benefits under Section 3 of the Law where Claimant's accident and subsequent arrest
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 460]
occurred while Claimant was on his own personal business and in his own personal vehicle. This specific issue was recently addressed by our Court and decided adversely to Claimant's position in Huff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11, 396 A.2d 94 (allocatur granted April 9, 1979).