In Philadelphia Housing Authority v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 33, Local 934, 900 A.2d 1043, 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006), this Court conducted an exhaustive review of the "core function" doctrine and the circumstances which will trigger its applicability. The Court announced the following multi-part test for determining whether a "core function" is or is not implicated in cases involving discipline of government employees: First, where serious misconduct is of a sort which has a direct negative impact on the public function of the employing agency, such as preying upon or otherwise putting at risk those persons the agency is charged to serve, there is no question that the core function test has been satisfied. On the other hand, where the conduct is of a type which will have only an indirect or potential impact on the agency's public duties, such as embezzlement or a breach of trust, two conditions must be met. The misconduct must be work-related and must involve dishonesty or other misconduct so egregious that if the agency is unable to curtail such behavior it risks relinquishing control of the orderly functioning of its operations. ... It is not necessary that the particular act(s) of the discharged employee, standing alone, impairs or threatens the agency's operation, but rather that it is the type of conduct which, if left unchecked, may lead to such a result. Id. at 1051