Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Joseph V. Sorco, No. B-221655.
Charles D. Shields, Jr., Deputy Counsel, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig, Doyle and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 275]
The Department of the Auditor General (employer) has petitioned for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which reversed a referee's decision and awarded benefits to Joseph V. Sorco (claimant). It is employer's contention that claimant is ineligible for compensation because he was discharged for willful misconduct pursuant to Section 402(e)*fn1 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). This misconduct consisted of allegedly paying money to obtain his job and failing to reveal this payment on his employment application.
The Office of Employment Security (OES) denied claimant benefits pursuant to Sections 3*fn2 and 402(e)*fn3 of the Law. A timely appeal was filed by claimant and, on October 20, 1982, a referee modified the OES determination and concluded that claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e).*fn4 Claimant timely appealed this decision to the Board which, on August 26, 1983, reversed the referee. The Board found that claimant "did not pay money to obtain his job"*fn5 or "withhold or conceal any material information from employer in completing his application for employment"*fn6 because "[t]he employer . . . failed to
[ 86 Pa. Commw. Page 276]
produce any competent, credible evidence or testimony to sustain . . . [these] allegations."
On September 8, 1983, the employer filed a "Request to Offer Additional Evidence at Another Hearing." In the "Request" the employer stated that:
[S]ubsequent . . . [to the referee's hearing] on December 7, 1982, an AFSCME Union Arbitration Hearing was conducted on behalf of . . . [c]laimant . . . to contest . . . [his termination] of employment . . . .
Given the crucial nature of this additional evidence, the Department . . . hereby requests the Board to schedule another hearing to afford this Department the opportunity to either have Mr. Saittis testify, if possible, or attempt to introduce into evidence a certified original transcript of the Arbitration Hearing and the subsequent Decision of the ...