Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the case of In Re: Claim of Richard Liebel, No. B-267645.
A. Martin Herring, for petitioner.
Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Michael I. Levin, Cleckner and Fearen, for intervenor, Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School.
Judges Doyle and McGinley, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 566]
Before this Court is an appeal by Richard Liebel (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying Claimant's request for benefits pursuant to Sections 401, 4(u) and 402 (e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1
The Board made the following relevant factual findings. Claimant was last employed by the Middle Bucks
[ 125 Pa. Commw. Page 567]
Vocational-Technical School (Employer) from September 1976 to June 16, 1987. He was originally hired by Employer to teach in its auto mechanic program, but as a result of declining enrollment in that program, he assumed the duties of part-time teacher in the graphic occupations program (Program). Claimant, however, was not properly trained in all phases of the Program and refused to complete his training. Claimant also failed to develop a competency program for his students as required by the Department of Education. Additionally, he did not follow Employer's policy and instructions regarding an art sale of items accumulated in the Program. Claimant was subsequently dismissed from his position with Employer.
Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits with the Office of Employment Security (OES). The OES issued a determination holding that Claimant had not committed willful misconduct, as defined in Section 402(e) of the Law, but that he was ineligible under Section 401, and 4(u). Claimant then filed a timely appeal, and a referee's hearing was scheduled. All parties requested a continuance of the hearing but it was denied. The referee then based his ruling to deny benefits on the available evidence of record and affirmed the decision of the OES.
Both Claimant and Employer appealed the referee's decision to the Board, and Employer requested that the Board remand the case to the referee for additional testimony. The Board then issued an order scheduling a remand hearing for November 13, 1987. Both Employer and Claimant again requested a continuance. The hearing ...