Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Gustav A. Stickloon, No. B-206209.
James D. Watt, Jr., for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 224]
This is an appeal by Gustav A. Stickloon (claimant) from an Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision denying benefits on the ground that the claimant's unemployment was the result of his own willful misconduct.*fn1
The claimant worked for approximately eight years as a saw operator for United Metal Receptacle (employer). His last day of work was January 12, 1982, on which date he was told he was fired for having participated in an illegal work stoppage which was in violation of a labor-management agreement between the International Molders and Allied Workers Union and the employer. At the time of the stoppage the claimant was a member of the International Molders and Allied Workers Union and was a Union Official, the shop committeeman.
Our scope of review in unemployment cases where the party with the burden of proof has prevailed before the Board is limited to a determination of whether the Board's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law has been committed. Gardner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 71 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 512, 454 A.2d 1208 (1983).
[ 82 Pa. Commw. Page 225]
The Board affirmed the decision of the Referee who found, inter alia, that:
1. . . . [The Claimant's] last day of work was January 12, 1982.
5. On January 8, 1982, the employees at the employer's facility commenced a work stoppage due to the employer's suspending a fellow employee for alleged infraction of the work rules.
6. Prior to the commencement of the shift on January 8, 1982, claimant as the shop committeeman, tried to persuade the workers to return to work because they would be in violation of Article ...