Guth v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

2 Citing cases

  1. Robinson v. Commonwealth

    119 Pa. Commw. 133 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    In Robinson, we concluded that the Board erred, because the claimant's eligibility should have been determined under Section 3 given that he was discharged on the basis of the off-duty conduct— i.e., unbecoming conduct—which had no connection to his work.

    Thus, this case must be remanded because an appellate court may not fill a factual void. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). Under Section 3, the employer must show (1) that the claimant's conduct was contrary to acceptable standards of behavior, and (2) that the conduct in question directly reflects upon claimant's ability to perform his assigned duties.

  2. Sheaffer v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    92 Pa. Commw. 431 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 11 times
    In Sheaffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 92 Pa. Commw. 431, 499 A.2d 1121 (1985), the claimant, who had been employed by a company for a year and three months, was arrested and charged with burglary and theft.

    Clark, 80 Pa. Commw. at 517, 471 A.2d at 1311. This Court, when conducting its function of appellate review, may not fill a factual void. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). Therefore, we vacate the Board's decision and order, and remand for specific findings of fact on the following: