Opinion
March 23, 1976.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Criminal conviction-Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Scope of appellate review — Fraud — Error of law — Substantial evidence.
1. An employe, voluntarily terminating his employment when given the opportunity to resign or face discharge following a criminal conviction, is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [149]
2. Decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review will be affirmed on appeal unless fraud, an error of law or an absence of substantial evidence is shown. [149]
Submitted on briefs, February 5, 1976, to Judges CRUMLISH, JR., WILKINSON, JR. and MENCER, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1009 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Galen E. Delker, No. B-126125.
Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Benefits denied by referee and denial affirmed by Board. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Ambrose R. Campana, with him Campana Campana, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Galen E. Delker (Claimant) appeals a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
Claimant was last employed as a salary-plus- commission salesman for Stroehmann Brothers Company. He had worked nine and one-half years for this company when he was arrested for possession and sale of amphetimines. Following the arrest, he was given the opportunity to resign his position or face possible termination. He chose the former. Claimant now contends that the decision of the Board is not supported by the record which he argues discloses that he was forced to resign or in the alternative be immediately discharged. We do not agree. The record clearly discloses that Claimant testified he "had a choice" and "voluntarily signed a release." Moreover, the employer testified that Claimant was in "[n]o way" coerced.
The employer also testified that the claimant, before being asked, said he would resign.
As is the case here, findings and decisions of the Board supported by substantial evidence must be affirmed on appeal in the absence of an error of law or a showing of fraud. Thomas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commw. 398, 322 A.2d 398 (1974).
Therefore, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 1976, the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed and the appeal dismissed.