beliefs of the people and in their conviction of what is just and right and in the interests of the public weal. Shick, 716 A.2d at 1235-36 (quoting Mamlin, 17 A.2d at 409). Fraser argues that his case fits within Hennessy’s first two exceptions: Nationwide fired him for refusing to commit a crime and for his attempt to comply with a statutorily imposed duty. We find these arguments unconvincing. Even assuming that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would also view these as exceptions to an employer’s right to fire an at-will employee, Fraser has presented no evidence that Nationwide directed him to commit any crime, nor has he pointed us to any statutory duty to report Nationwide’s violations of the law. Compare Field v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 388 Pa.Super. 400, 565 A.2d 1170 (1989) (<HOLDING>), with Hennessy v. Santiago, 708 A.2d 1269
holding that a union employee protected by a collective bargaining agreement was in no different position than an atwill employee and could similarly maintain an action for wrongful discharge for reporting workplace safety violations holding termination wrongful when employee had a statutory duty to report violations holding that although incorrect drug report was detrimental to employee employee had no claim against hospital because the report was not intended to primarily or directly benefit the employee holding that to establish a pattern of unlawful activity in a ease involving currency transaction report violations the government must prove that the currency transaction report violations were both repeated and related to one another holding a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy is not available where the employee has an existing statutory remedy