Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Randy O. Sheaffer, No. B-220003.
Geoffrey M. Biringer, with him, Frederic Chardon, for petitioner.
Charles D. Donahue, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, and James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Colins and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 432]
Randy O. Sheaffer (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision to deny unemployment compensation benefits to Claimant under Section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law) (declaration of public policy that benefits will be granted only to persons unemployed through no fault of their own).
Claimant was employed by Wilton Company (Employer) as a grinder, where he worked for one year and three months until his last day of employment on March 4, 1983. On March 2, 1983, while at his place of employment, Claimant was arrested by the Mt. Joy police and charged with burglary and theft for a crime
[ 92 Pa. Commw. Page 433]
which was not committed against Employer.*fn2 When he returned to work two days later, Claimant spoke to Employer and admitted that he was guilty of the theft, whereupon he was given the option of resigning or being dismissed. Claimant opted to resign but, as the referee found, in light of the choice offered him Claimant had in effect been discharged by Employer because of the theft.*fn3
Relying on Section 3 of the Law, the referee denied unemployment compensation benefits to Claimant, holding that such benefits are available only to those individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own, while Claimant's discharge was certainly caused by his own fault. The Board affirmed the referee's decision.
On appeal to this Court, Claimant argues that the evidence does not establish fault on his part which would be incompatible with his work responsibilities, and that he cannot, therefore, be precluded from benefits by reason of Section 3.
Initially, we note that our scope of review of this case is limited to determining whether or not the factual findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether or not an error of law has been committed. Clark v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ...