Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Cornelius Hamm, No. B-201881.
Michelle Terry, with her Antoinette Jones, for petitioner.
Charles Donahue, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Williams, Jr., Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 219]
Claimant*fn1 appeals from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) order which reversed the referee's determination and denied unemployment benefits because of Claimant's wilful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn2
Claimant was employed as a "counter worker" by Employer*fn3 for five and one-half years. Claimant's duties included counting daily the piece work performed by each welder and reporting the numbers to the responsible welding supervisor who would then record each welder's daily output on that employe's work sheet. Upon the welding supervisors' signing of the work sheets, each welder's wage would then be computed according to the piecework count recorded on the respective work slips. For June 4, 1981, Claimant, without authorization, and in deliberate violation of Employer policy and rules,*fn4 completed a number of work sheets and falsified the signatures of two welding supervisors. On June 8, 1981, Claimant was discharged.
After the Office of Employment Security (OES) denied benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law,
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 220]
Claimant appealed to the referee who, upon Employer's nonappearance at the hearing, issued a decision reversing OES and allowing benefits. The Employer appealed and the Board remanded the matter to a different referee presiding as the Board's hearing officer. Subsequent to the hearing, during which neither Claimant nor Employer were represented by counsel, the Board issued an order reversing the referee's decision and denying benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Law. This appeal followed.
Claimant contends that the Board's order should be vacated and the case remanded to allow the Board, after rehearing (during which Claimant will have the benefit of counsel), to make factual findings pertinent to Claimant's allegedly "schizophrenic" mental state at the time of his misconduct. Further, asserting that he was "grossly psychotic" and not competent to represent himself during the Board hearing, Claimant proposes that we order a rehearing, where, now represented, he can adequately and competently present his case.*fn5
[ 77 Pa. Commw. Page 221]
In support of his "insanity defense," Claimant's brief proffers several letters (attached as exhibits) and numerous factual assertions relevant to Claimant's "psychosis" on or about the time of the misconduct. Unfortunately, none of the letters or assertions is of record, and we can not consider anything which is not of record, duly certified, and transmitted to us by the Board.*fn6 See, McCaffrey v. Pittsburgh Page 221} Athletic Association, 448 Pa. 151, 162, 293 A.2d 51, 57 (1972); Society Hill Towers Owners Association v. Matthew, 306 Pa. Superior Ct. 13, 451 A.2d 1366, 1369 n. 3 (1982); City of Erie v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 194, 198, 398 A.2d ...