Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Andrea L. Masom, No. B-232298.
Frayda Kamber, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Barry and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 617]
Andrea L. Masom (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying unemployment compensation benefits to Petitioner 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).
Petitioner was employed by the Snyder/Union Office of Human Resources (Employer) on May 1, 1983. Initially, Petitioner was hired for a temporary position; however, she began full-time work as an Employment Specialist in June, 1983. Petitioner was given notice of her termination on February 9, 1984, as a result of her
[ 107 Pa. Commw. Page 618]
guilty plea to a charge of drug possession. Petitioner's last day of work was March 30, 1984.
Petitioner filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits on April 1, 1984, which was denied by the Office of Employment Security (OES) pursuant to Section 402(e)*fn2 of the Law. Petitioner appealed and a hearing was held before a referee who affirmed OES's denial of benefits but held that denial was more properly based upon Section 3 of the Law. Petitioner appealed to the Board which, on July 9, 1984, affirmed the referee's order.
The following are the pertinent facts as found by the referee:
3. Specifically, on September 30, 1983, the claimant was arrested for drug possession and intent to sell, which arrest was prominently publicized in the local newspapers.
4. The employer, feeling the publicity was negative to a great degree and feeling that it could reflect on the employer, discussed the situation with the claimant and agreed to allow her to continue her employment until she was either found guilty or not guilty of the charges against her, at which time they would take whatever action they felt appropriate.
5. On February 9, 1984, the claimant entered a plea of guilty in Common Pleas Court to a charge of a misdemeanor and was thereafter placed on one-year probation by the Court.
6. Claimant's immediate supervisor, the Executive Director, advised the claimant that the Commissioners of the two counties had voted to dismiss her for her plea of guilty which they ...