Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of John Pierron, No. B-185126.
Rosalie M. Leonard, with her Alan J. Davis, City Solicitor, Judith N. Dean, Deputy City Solicitor, Kenneth M. Jarin, Deputy City Solicitor, Ellis Saull, Assistant City Solicitor and Kevin Gallagher, Paralegal Assistant, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 148]
The City of Philadelphia (petitioner) challenges a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) granting benefits to John Pierron. The Board found that Mr. Pierron, who was the appointed Executive Director of the Philadelphia Civic Center,
3. . . . directed the overall activities of the Civic Center, but he in turn was subject to the direction and control of his immediate superior officer, City Representative and Director of Commerce and of the Board of Trade and Commerce.
4. The claimant attended Board meetings but was not a member; he made recommendations to the Board but any decision he made was subject to their review.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 149]
The Board concluded that Mr. Pierron was not employed in "a major non-tenured policymaking" position under Section 1201(b)(9) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),*fn1 and that he was therefore eligible for benefits. This petition for review followed.
This Court has interpreted language similar to that in Section 1201(b)(9) when it examined Section 1002(11) of the Law which applies to Commonwealth employees in Gahres v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 114, 433 A.2d 152 (1981), and we noted there that:
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 150]
the terms of Section 1002(11) do not apply the exclusion to positions which are policymaking or advisory positions merely as a matter of fact. The law applies the exclusion to those which are so "designated" and describes the designation as being "under or pursuant to the laws of this Commonwealth." We must construe the statute to give effect to all of its wording, and, when the words are clear, we cannot disregard the literal language. 1 Pa. C.S. § 1921(a), (b). Of course, not even the claimant argues that the exclusion requires the existence of a provision of law which uses the precise words, "major" or "policymaking" or "advisory." However, there must be some ...