Court Opinion

ID: 9750468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:59:52.146503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:26:10.717208
License: Public Domain

*142Dissenting Opinion by
Senior Judge Kalish:
I agree that Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1 disqualifies claimant for unemployment compensation benefits for work-related misconduct, whereas section (3) of the Law, 43 P.S. §752, as an independent basis for the denial of compensation, disqualifies for non-work-related misconduct. However, as Judge Barbieri indicated in Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 96 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 38, 506 A.2d 974 (1986), the non-work-related misconduct must directly affect the claimants ability to perform his assigned duties. Willful misconduct, under section 402(e) may include conduct which disregards the , employees duties and obligations to his employer, thus affecting his ability to perform his assigned duties.
In both instances, the conclusions reached, upon analysis, are questions of law. Kalenevitch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 109 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 549, 531 A.2d 590 (1987); D’Iorio v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 443, 400 A.2d 1347 (1979). That is why, as the majority indicates, some of these cases have been analyzed under either section.
In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Derk, 24 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 54, 353 A.2d 915 (1976), brought under section 402(e), the court could not decide the case even under section 3, since the claimant was simply “arrested” for a morals charge, and ah arrest could not supply the necessary substantial evidence, “which directly reflects upon his ability to perform his assigned duties.” Id. at 57, 353 A.2d 917.
*143In Perdue v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 641, 369 A.2d 1334 (1977), the claimant was employed as a construction inspector and was found guilty of retail theft while off duty. Under such circumstances, this court held that the claimants conviction reflected upon his ability to perform his duties as a construction worker.
I see no necessity to remand for section 3 findings. The evidence and record are clear that claimant drove a sanitation truck for the City of Pittsburgh, and the majority considered, as substantive evidence, claimants admission that he was intoxicated while driving off duty and was involved in an accident in which a person was killed. Certainly, nothing more is needed to come to a reasonable conclusion that claimants conduct reflects upon his ability to perform his assigned duties.
Accordingly, I would affirm the order of the Board.

 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).