Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Forrest M. Swaydis, No. B-223815.
Joanna Nezovich Reynolds, Assistant Counsel, for petitioner.
Samuel H. Lewis, Associate Counsel, with him, Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, and Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Colins.
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 190]
This case presents the issue of whether a claimant is eligible for unemployment compensation under the provisions of Section 401(f) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 when, after being initially terminated for willful misconduct, he was reinstated in his employment by order of this
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 191]
Court, and said order was subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court.*fn2
Forrest M. Swaydis (Claimant) was last employed by the Pennsylvania State Police (employer). On
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 192]
March 4, 1981, the Claimant was initially dismissed by the employer following a court-martial for various infractions of the employer's rules of conduct, including, inter alia, writing bad checks and opening bank accounts under a fictitious name. The Claimant took two actions as a result of this dismissal: (1) he applied for unemployment benefits; and (2) he appealed his court-martial to this Court. The Office of Employment Security (OES) ruled that the Claimant's conduct constituted willful misconduct as contemplated by Section 402(e) of the Law,*fn3 and, therefore, denied him benefits. This decision was never appealed.
However, in reviewing the Claimant's court-martial, this Court found that the court-martial was improperly convened; therefore, we ordered the Claimant reinstated to his position.*fn4 The Claimant was so reinstated on April 12, 1983, and he worked until May 24, 1983, at which time he was again dismissed. This second dismissal was a result of a stay of the reinstatement order by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which subsequently reversed the Commonwealth Court's order of reinstatement.*fn5 It is significant to note that the Claimant also worked for the Martz bus company and for Trailways bus company in the interim between his separation in 1981 and his reinstatement in 1983.
The Claimant applied for benefits after his second separation, and benefits were again denied by the OES. The Claimant appealed, and a referee reversed the OES determination and granted benefits. The Unemployment Compensation Board ...