Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Dennis W. Walmer, No. B-224069.
Jeffrey Keiter, for petitioner.
Donna Marie B. Stanek, Associate Counsel, with her, Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, and Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Doyle and Palladino and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Barbieri.
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 163]
Sem-Pak Corporation, trading as S. E. Meyer Packaging (Sem-Pak), appeals here the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which reversed the referee's determination and allowed Claimant, Dennis Walmer, unemployment compensation benefits.
Claimant, previously discharged on April 7, 1983 by Sem-Pak from his position as pressman for alleged substandard performance, was receiving unemployment
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 164]
compensation when Sem-Pak on June 23, 1983 offered Claimant a position as a pressman's helper. Claimant refused the offer asserting health reasons for his refusal. The referee found that, at the time the offer was made to Claimant, Sem-Pak was aware of Claimant's limitations and was willing to provide assistance to the Claimant so that he could perform the duties as a pressman's helper, and that Claimant did not have another offer of employment at the time he refused Sem-Pak's offer. The referee concluded that Claimant refused an offer of suitable work without good cause rendering Claimant ineligible to receive benefits pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
On appeal to the Board, the Board took notice of its prior decision on the issue of Claimant's involuntary separation from Sem-Pak for alleged substandard performance in which the Board declared Claimant eligible to receive benefits. In its decision, on the job refusal issue, the Board stated that the employer knew that Claimant was physically unable to perform the job offered him, suggesting to the Board that the offer was not made in good faith. Concluding that the work was not suitable for the Claimant, the Board reversed the referee and granted benefits. This appeal followed.
Sem-Pak argues on appeal that the Board failed to comply with the procedural standards established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Treon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 455, 453 A.2d 960 (1982) because the Board failed to state its reasons for disregarding or overturning certain essential findings of fact made by the referee. The Board also failed to comply with Treon, Sem-Pak argues,
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 165]
when it disregarded certain of the referee's findings "in order to find only those facts which it believed were essential to support its conclusions." Lastly, Sem-Pak argues that the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and that the Board erred, as a matter of law, in concluding that Sem-Pak's job offer was not made in good faith and that the employment ...