Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Mary K. Grundon, No. B-211290 and claim of Clarence Robinson, No. B-216032.
John Michael Eakin, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Williams, Jr., Barry and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 477]
These appeals result from orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming decisions of the referees which awarded benefits to claimants Mary K. Grundon and Clarence Robinson.
The claimant, Mary K. Grundon, was last employed as a loan clerk by the petitioners, Defense Activities Federal Credit Union (Credit Union), and had been employed for approximately four years. The
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 478]
President of the Credit Union was elected by board members who were chosen by credit union members. Prior to 1982, board members were elected by those credit union members who attended an annual meeting. In 1982, a new procedure was implemented wherein all credit union members were sent ballots with a return postage envelope, which allowed members to vote by mail. If a credit union member lost his ballot, he could obtain another ballot at the credit union offices. A person who was not a member of the credit union could obtain a ballot for a member if the non-member presented adequate identification.
In the latter part of 1981, a board member asked the claimant to inform him of any improprieties which the claimant might observe regarding the ballot distribution. While employed, the claimant did not know that board members who made requests for such information would not have that information provided to them. In March of 1982, the board member who made the request initiated a lawsuit against the credit union regarding the election to be held that same month.
During March, 1982, the claimant observed that some non-members who obtained ballots were not required to present identification. The claimant, who believed some impropriety had occurred, informed the board member of the apparent irregularity. The claimant apparently did not know a chain of command existed to report possible election improprieties.
Subpoenaed to testify in a lawsuit in which the board member was a plaintiff, the claimant testified that she had contacted the board member about the possible improper ballot distribution procedures. A representative of the credit union, who attended the hearing, determined that claimant had given confidential information ...