Appeal from the Order of the Board of Claims in case of James J. Shaffer v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Liquor Control Board, No. 888.
John Adam Matlawski, Killian & Gephart, for petitioner.
Eileen S. Mamus, with her, Bruce H. Bikin, Assistant Counsel, and Gary F. Di Vito, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers and MacPhail, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 375]
This case is an appeal from a decision of the Board of Claims (Board) dismissing the claim of James J. Shaffer (Appellant).
Appellant is an employee of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB). Appellant was the manager of Store No. 2402 in St. Mary's when that store was closed in March 1981. Appellant was reassigned to Store No. 2404 in St. Mary's and reclassified as a Liquor Store Manager IA. In that position, which Appellant held from March 1981 until August 1983, he performed the duties of a clerk in Store No. 2404. In addition, he would fill in as a substitute manager at other stores in three neighboring counties. Currently, Appellant serves in a Clerk I position, following a voluntary demotion.
Appellant claims that he is entitled to be reimbursed for expenses incurred between October 1982 and August 1983 in travelling to the stores in neighboring counties. There was evidence presented before the Board that Appellant received reimbursement for
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 376]
such expenses prior to October 1982 but that after that time the PLCB has refused reimbursement.
Appellant followed the grievance procedure set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the PLCB and Appellant's bargaining unit. The grievance was denied at the first and second levels. Appellant then filed a Petition for Claim before the Board of Claims on May 17, 1983.*fn1 The Board denied Appellant's claim, finding that because the Memorandum of Understanding included provisions dealing with travel expenses, and because these provisions did not allow reimbursement for the types of travel expenses Appellant was seeking,*fn2 Appellant was
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 377]
not entitled to reimbursement. In so finding the Board held that the Memorandum ...