Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Arthur J. Greif, No. B-194112.
Arthur John Greif, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 438]
Claimant Arthur J. Greif appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which affirmed a referee's decision denying claimant benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 on the basis of a voluntary quit.
The claimant was employed as a staff attorney for the Pittsburgh regional office of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (employer). On Sunday night, August 3, 1980, claimant returned to Pittsburgh from a vacation, went to his office and wrote a disjointed, two-page, "resignation" memorandum, which he time-stamped at 5:21 a.m., on August 4. The claimant's supervisor received the "resignation" at the beginning of normal office hours, on August 4. The employer did not immediately accept the claimant's resignation.
On August 6, the claimant was arrested for disorderly conduct, and on August 8, the claimant was involuntarily committed for psychiatric treatment.
On August 18, the employer's regional director decided to treat the claimant as terminated, and the claimant's supervisor so informed him. On August 26, the employer mailed a termination letter, dated August 19, 1980, to the claimant. The letter, which
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 439]
claimant received on August 28, states that "Ms. Doyle informed us that you advised her that you did not know when, if ever, you would be able to return to the Commission."
The referee concluded that the claimant's failure to give the employer a commitment to return was a voluntary quit. We must decide whether the referee capriciously disregarded competent evidence in making the crucial finding, adopted by the board, that "the claimant gave the employer no commitment of his desire to return to work."*fn2
The record establishes that, on August 14, the claimant called the regional director from the hospital. As to that conversation, both the regional director and the claimant agreed that the claimant said he would be able to return to work on September 2, ...