Reasonable assurance is a matter to be determined by the Board based on relevant facts. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). In determining that Foremsky had a reasonable assurance of returning to work as a part-time substitute teacher following the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the Board noted Foremsky's employment history as a per diem substitute during the past two academic years.
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.
See also Neshaminy School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commw. 543, 548, 426 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1981) ("So long as the claimant desires and intends to continue substitute work and [the employer] expects to offer such work . . . the employment relationship of a substitute teacher remains viable.") (emphasis added) (quoting Louderback v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commw. 501, 504-05, 409 A.2d 1198, 1200 (1980)). In the present case, there is no real dispute that the "necessary mutuality," Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 84, 473 A.2d 228, 231 (1984), did not exist, because claimant resigned from her position and thereby severed any relationship she had prior thereto with the school district. Compare Foti v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commw. 128, 131-32, 430 A.2d 1043, 1045-46 (1981) (where claimant-teacher testified that he never intended to accept offer as per diem substitute, after having been employed as long-term substitute, and supported such testimony with evidence that showed he had applied for other jobs, held: claimant had sustained burden of showing "availability," and hence could not have had "reasonable assurance" for purposes of section 401.1(1)).
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: