Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of Steven B. Carlantonio, No. B-237165.
Morris D. Bernstein, Galfand, Berger, Senesky, Lurie & March, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
James J. Sullivan, Jr., with him, Marjorie H. Gordon, Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for intervenor, Hahnemann University.
Judges Craig and Barry, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
Steven B. Carlantonio appeals from an order of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's decision that Carlantonio's acts of misrepresentation constituted willful misconduct under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 43 P.S. § 802(e), thereby disqualifying him for benefits. We affirm.
Carlantonio does not dispute the board's Findings of Fact Nos. 1 through 4 inclusive, which are summarized as follows. Carlantonio was employed by Hahnemann University as the director of physical plant maintenance from 1975 to 1984. In 1982, Frank Bienkowski applied for the position of electrical division foreman with Hahnemann University. Carlantonio recommended that Bienkowski be given the position and thereafter Bienkowski was hired. At the time Carlantonio recommended
Bienkowski for the position of electrical foreman, he was a close friend of Bienkowski and he knew that Bienkowski had been employed by Sun Ship Company for the last eight years as a security guard.
The board's Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7 and 8, which Carlantonio also does not dispute, establish Bienkowski's admitted falsification of his employment application, and Carlantonio's statements to Hahnemann University officials that he did not know Bienkowski before Bienkowski's employment with Hahnemann University and that he had no knowledge of his work experience.
Findings of Fact Nos. 5, 9 and 10, which Carlantonio challenges as not being supported by substantial evidence, are as follows:
5. University officials later discovered that the individual recommended by the claimant was having difficulties carrying out his assignments in some areas and they were also informed by letter, by an individual not named at the hearing, that the employee recommended by the claimant did ...