unreasonable,” Crawford County, 693 A.2d at 1389, it is only applicable where found conduct involved is criminal or it breaches a duty that could harm the public. See e.g., Greene County v. District 2, United Mine Workers of America, 736 A.2d 52 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999) (arbitrator’s award reversing a dismissal of a Children and Youth Services employee whose conduct jeopardized the welfare of children by failing to keep accurate and prompt records manifestly unreasonable); Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Union Security Officers # 1, 500 Pa. 213, 455 A.2d 625 (1983) (arbitrator’s award reinstating a security guard in Housing Authority project who defrauded a tenant manifestly unreasonable); Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Independent State Stores Union, 520 Pa. 266, 553 A.2d 948 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Claimant’s conduct here, even if we put the
holding that oral termination was invalid where cba called for written termination and that termination was effected only when written notice was given to the funds and the union according to the specific date requirements of the cba holding attendance problem was a legitimate basis for an employers termination of an employee holding that school districts do not share in the commonwealth of pennsylvanias eleventh amendment sovereign immunity because they are not alter egos of the commonwealth holding that the arbitrator could not modify the lcbs termination of an employee for theft of commonwealth funds holding that ujnlike for local agency employees willful misconduct does not vitiate a commonwealth employees immunity because sovereign immunity protects a commonwealth employee acting within the scope of his or her employment from liability even for intentional torts