Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the case of In Re: Claim of Wadell Atkins, No. B-258005.
Joseph N. Bifano, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
C. Robert Keenan, III, Jones, Gregg, Creehan & Gerace, for intervenor, Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 166]
Wadell Atkins (Petitioner) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision of a referee to deny Petitioner benefits under section 3 of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 167]
Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 752.*fn1 For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.
Petitioner was employed as a mechanic by Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Employer) and worked in Employer's Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory. The referee found that all employees at the lab had to be given security clearance by the United States Department of Energy (DOE). On June 2, 1986, Employer terminated Petitioner from his employment after it was notified by DOE that Petitioner's security clearance had been revoked. Although Petitioner's last day of work was June 2, 1986, Employer testified that Petitioner continued to receive his salary until February 27, 1987 while DOE was conducting a further investigation.
Petitioner filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits on March 1, 1987, alleging a lack of work. The Office of Employment Security (OES) denied the claim under section 3 of the Law. Petitioner appealed this determination and a hearing was then held before a referee. The referee also denied benefits pursuant to section 3, finding that Petitioner's loss of security clearance, for reasons not connected with his employment, precluded his continuing his employment
[ 121 Pa. Commw. Page 168]
with Employer. Without taking additional evidence, the Board affirmed the decision of the ...