Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Violette Crowley, No. B-233635.
Sean F. Creegar, Counsel, with him, Herbert W. Hoffman, Deputy Chief Counsel, for petitioner.
Charles Hasson, for respondent.
Fred Barakat, for intervenor, Violette Crowley.
Judges MacPhail and Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
The Office of Employment Security of the Department of Labor and Industry (petitioner) appeals a decision by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (respondent) granting Violette M. Crowley
(claimant) benefits. Claimant was employed by petitioner as an Unemployment Claims Examiner in the Chester Office from 1964-67 and again from 1970-84. On February 3, 1984, claimant submitted a written notice of retirement effective May 2, 1984. Subsequently, claimant became aware that her pension, based on her seventeen years' service, would not meet her fiscal needs. On April 9, 1984, she wrote a second letter, attempting to revoke her resignation. In a reply dated April 16, 1984, Richard A. Himler (Himler), Director of Personnel for petitioner, refused to grant claimant's request to revoke her resignation and informed claimant that her originally requested separation date would be implemented by petitioner in accordance with the "agency's policy not to approve changes regarding separation dates once they have been accepted." Petitioner does not contend that this policy has been published as a regulation or reduced to any official written form.
Petitioner seeks a reversal of the Board's decision to grant benefits contending that claimant's notice of retirement effectively constituted a voluntary resignation, barring her from benefits as per Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). We disagree and affirm the Board's decision.
Because the claimant had the burden of proof and prevailed before the Board, our scope of review is limited to whether an error of law was committed or whether any necessary finding of fact was unsupported by substantial evidence. Centerville Clinics, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 67 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 91, 445 A.2d 1374 (1982). The Board adopted the referee's findings that petitioner, through Himler, denied claimant's request to rescind
her resignation and that the claimant was ready, able, ...