Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Karen V. Jacoby, No. B-170989-B.
Allen H. Smith, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Assistant Attorney General, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 164]
The York Tape and Label Corporation (petitioner) has appealed from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which reversed the referee and awarded benefits to Karen V. Jacoby (claimant). We affirm.
The claimant had been employed by the petitioner as a graphic designer for some 8 years. In mid-September 1978, in the course of a discussion with the petitioner's personnel director, the claimant stated that she was looking for another job. On October 22, 1978, the claimant's supervisor informed her that she had been replaced and that her last day of work would be November 4.
The claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits but was initially found to be ineligible by the Office of Employment Security (OES) because she had voluntarily terminated her employment.*fn1 The referee modified the OES determination
[ 62 Pa. Commw. Page 165]
and ruled that the claimant was ineligible because of willful misconduct.*fn2 The referee's decision was originally affirmed by the Board and appealed to this Court. The Board and the claimant jointly moved to have the case remanded, and the Board subsequently reversed the referee and granted benefits. The present appeal followed.
The petitioner has raised five issues for our consideration: 1) whether the Commonwealth Court erred in permitting the Board to reconsider the case after an appeal had been filed, 2) whether the Commonwealth Court's remand order was improper because it directed the Board to issue a "new decision," 3) whether the Board erred in reversing its original decision without hearing additional evidence, 4) whether the Board erred in finding that the claimant had informed her employer that she intended to look for other work at some future time, and 5) whether the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence when it rejected the petitioner's contention that the claimant had voluntarily quit. None of these contentions persuade us that the Board should be reversed.
The Board's decision of April 11, 1979 (first decision) contained five statements denominated as findings of fact:
1. Claimant last worked with York Tape and Label Corporation as a Marketing Service Graphic Designer at a bi-weekly salary of $235.00. Her ...