The fault concept articulated in Section 3 concerns that arising in the employer/employee relationship. See Tronzo v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 514 Pa. 24, 30, 522 A.2d 544, 547 (1987). Moreover, this Court has stated in its examination of Section 3 of the Act that:
'"The appellate court's duty is to examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the [UCBR] has found, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony, to see if substantial evidence for the [UCBR]'s conclusion exists."' Tronzo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 522 A.2d 544, 545 (Pa. 1987) (citations omitted).
An appellate court can supply its own reasoning to support a conclusion. Tronzo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 514 Pa. 24, 522 A.2d 544 (1987). The authorization for store #41 was suspended for one year, on the basis that the store failed to cooperate with the WIC training program.