decided: December 2, 1982.
SERVICE DYE CUTTING & PACKAGING CORP., PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. EDWARD MORRIS, INTERVENOR
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Edward Morris, No. B-192405.
Jeffrey Ivan Pasek, with him Barbara Ann Sellinger, of counsel: Cohen, Shapiro, Polisher, Shiekman and Cohen, for petitioner.
Susan McLaughlin, Harvey, Pennington, Herting & Renneisen, Ltd., for intervenor, Edward Morris.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 219]
Service Dye Cutting and Packaging Corporation appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 220]
Review order granting benefits to Edward Morris. We reverse and remand.
Morris was discharged for alleged theft of his employer's property. The referee denied benefits, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that Morris was guilty of willful misconduct.*fn1 Morris appealed to the Board. Although he did not request oral argument before the Board, oral argument was granted after a written request was made by his legislator, Clifford Gray, Jr.*fn2 The Board, without taking additional evidence, then reversed the referee's decision and granted benefits.
It is well settled that questions as to the credibility of witnesses and evidentiary weight are left to the Board. Bignell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 568, 434 A.2d 869 (1981). Two witnesses testified for Service Dye that they had seen the missing property*fn3 loaded onto Morris' truck. Morris denied these allegations, asserting that he only had material slated for that day's delivery. The referee's decision included findings of fact addressing this conflict in testimony and a conclusion that Morris had misappropriated the property in violation of his employer's interests.
[ 70 Pa. Commw. Page 221]
The Board, however, in reversing the referee only made the following findings of fact on these crucial issues:
4. The claimant was not involved in the loss of the employer's skid board.
5. The claimant was discharged for alleged theft of the employer's skid board.
6. The claimant performed his assigned tasks to the best of his ability.
These findings fail to resolve the crucial issues presented, including the conflict in testimony offered. We must thus remand for additional findings of fact.*fn4 See Vandermark v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302, 402 A.2d 309 (1979).
Reversed and remanded.
The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-192405, dated February 20, 1981, is reversed and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion.
Reversed and remanded.