M.E. Petro v. UCBR ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Mathew E. Petro,                               :
    Petitioner               :
    :   Nos. 1819 & 1820 C.D. 2016
    v.                               :
    :   Submitted: September 15, 2017
    Unemployment Compensation                      :
    Board of Review,                               :
    Respondent                    :
    BEFORE:       HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge
    HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH                                               FILED: December 8, 2017
    Mathew E. Petro (Claimant) petitions for review of the October 4, 2016
    order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which dismissed,
    as untimely, Claimant’s appeal from a referee’s decisions denying him benefits under
    section 402(e) of Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1
    1
    Section 402(e) of the Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897,
    as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Section 402(e) provides that “an employe shall be ineligible for
    compensation for any week . . . [i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary
    suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not
    such work is ‘employment’ as defined in this act.” 43 P.S. §802(e).
    Facts and Procedural History
    Claimant was employed by Infiniti of Willow Grove (Employer) as an
    internet manager. (Claimant’s brief at 7.) In January 2013, Employer demoted
    Claimant to the sales force after he was found to be using the internet while at work.
    
    Id. Employer laid
    off Claimant in February 2013 due to slow sales. 
    Id. He was
    subsequently recalled from the layoff in October 2013. 
    Id. After the
    layoff, on February 26, 2013, Claimant applied for
    unemployment compensation benefits. (Board’s Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1; Certified
    Record (C.R.) at Item No. 1.) On that same day, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor
    and Industry (Department) sent Employer a notice to indicate that Claimant applied for
    benefits, asserting that he was unemployed due to lack of work, and to determine
    whether the information provided by Claimant was accurate. (F.F. No. 5.) Employer
    did not respond to that notice and provided no evidence to contradict Claimant’s
    assertions in his application. (F.F. No. 6.)
    The Department sent an original UC-44F financial determination to
    Claimant, awarding him benefits under section 401(a) of the Law2 on February 28,
    2013. (F.F. No. 2; C.R. at Item No. 28, Exhibit B32.) Claimant received benefits for
    the week ending on March 9, 2013, through August 31, 2013, at which time the benefits
    were exhausted. (F.F. Nos. 7-8.) Claimant filed for emergency unemployment
    compensation (EUC) beginning with the week ending on September 7, 2013. (F.F. No.
    8.)
    On October 7, 2013, Employer filed a request for relief from charges with
    the Department’s employer charge division. (F.F. No. 9.) The request asserted that
    2
    43 P.S. §801(a).
    2
    Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct. (F.F. No. 10.) The Department’s
    benefits division received notice of Employer’s request on January 10, 2014. 
    Id. As part
    of an investigation, the Department mailed Claimant a notification
    of Employer’s allegation on January 15, 2014. (F.F. No. 13; C.R. at Item No. 2.) The
    Department requested further information from both Claimant and Employer. (F.F.
    Nos. 13-15.)    Although Claimant received the documents, he neither read nor
    responded to them.     (F.F. No. 16; Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/13/16, at 32.)
    Employer, on the other hand, responded that it terminated Claimant due to his theft of
    company time by surfing the internet for personal use. (F.F. No. 17; C.R. at Item No.
    3.)
    On January 29, 2014, the Department issued six notices of determination:
    (1) denying Claimant benefits as of the week ending on March 2, 2013, under section
    402(e) of the Law; (2) establishing a $14,638.00 fault overpayment under section
    804(a) of the Law; (3) imposing 28 penalty weeks under section 801(b) of the Law; (4)
    denying EUC benefits as of the week ending on September 7, 2013, under section
    4001(b) of Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 (EUC Law); (5)
    establishing a fraud EUC overpayment of $511.00 under section 4005 of the EUC Law;
    and (6) imposing three penalty weeks under section 801(b) of the Law. (F.F. No. 18;
    C.R. at Item No. 4.) Copies of the notices of determination were mailed to the Claimant
    at his last known address. (F.F. No. 19.) The notices included information regarding
    the deadline by which to appeal the determinations, i.e. February 13, 2014. (F.F. No.
    20; C.R. at Item No. 4.)
    Although he received the notices, (F.F. No. 21; N.T., 4/23/14, at 6.),
    Claimant did not timely appeal the Department’s determinations by the February 13,
    2014 deadline. Rather, he acknowledged that he did not even open the notices of
    3
    determination until February 18, 2014, under the assumption that the documents
    pertained to his taxes. (F.F. Nos. 22-23; N.T., 4/23/14, at 6-7.) On February 19, 2014,
    six days after the appeal deadline, Claimant filed two petitions for appeal.3 (F.F. Nos.
    22-23; C.R. at Item No. 5.)
    After a hearing on April 23, 2014, the referee issued two decisions and
    orders dismissing Claimant’s appeals due to their untimeliness pursuant to section
    501(e) of the Law. (C.R. at Item No. 11.) Claimant timely appealed each decision to
    the Board, which issued two orders affirming the referee’s decisions on July 23, 2014.
    (C.R. at Item No. 14.)
    Claimant then appealed the Board’s orders to this Court. On October 19,
    2015, we issued an unreported opinion that vacated the Board’s orders and remanded
    the matter to the Board to conduct a further review of the procedures followed by the
    Department, namely whether a breakdown in the administrative process occurred.4
    (C.R. at Item No. 15.) In turn, the Board remanded the matter to the referee to gather
    the evidence requested by this Court. (C.R. at Item Nos. 18-19.) The referee held a
    hearing on July 13, 2016, at which Stacy Eshleman, a Department representative, and
    Claimant testified. (C.R. at Item No. 32.) The referee forwarded the transcript to the
    Board. On October 4, 2016, the Board issued two orders affirming the referee’s orders.
    3
    One petition for appeal related to the denial of Claimant’s unemployment compensation
    benefits under section 402(e) of the Law. The second petition for appeal related to the denial of his
    EUC benefits.
    4
    See Petro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (Pa. Cmwlth., Nos. 1446, 1447
    C.D. 2014, filed October 19, 2015).
    4
    (C.R. at Item No. 33.) Claimant filed a timely appeal of each October 4, 2016 order to
    this Court.5
    Discussion
    On appeal,6 Claimant argues that: (1) the Board erred as a matter of law
    in determining that Claimant did not establish that his failure to file timely appeals was
    a result of fraud, a breakdown in the administrative process, or another non-negligent
    reason; (2) credible evidence of record exists to demonstrate that Claimant was laid off
    rather than terminated due to alleged misconduct; and (3) the referee lacked the
    jurisdiction to determine that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct because
    Employer failed to appeal the Department’s decision of eligibility within 15 days of
    such determination.
    Nunc Pro Tunc Appeal
    We begin with Claimant’s first argument. Section 501(e) of the Law
    provides:
    Unless the claimant or last employer or base-year employer
    of the claimant files an appeal with the board, from the
    determination contained in any notice required to be
    furnished by the department under section five hundred and
    one (a), (c) and (d), within fifteen calendar days after such
    notice was delivered to him personally, or was mailed to his
    5
    The appeals to this Court were filed at Nos. 1819 and 1820 C.D. 2016. By order dated
    January 4, 2017, the matters were consolidated.
    6
    On appeal, our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights have
    been violated, whether an error of law has been committed, and whether findings of fact are supported
    by substantial evidence. Torres-Bobe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    125 A.3d 122
    , 126 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015).
    5
    last known post office address, and applies for a hearing,
    such determination of the department, with respect to the
    particular facts set forth in such notice, shall be final and
    compensation shall be paid or denied in accordance
    therewith.
    43 P.S. §821(e). “This fifteen-day time limit is mandatory; if an appeal is not timely
    filed within the specified time period, the determination becomes final, and the Board
    does not have the requisite jurisdiction to consider the matter.”            McClean v.
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    908 A.2d 956
    , 959 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2006) (citation and quotations omitted). In certain instances, this limitation can be
    waived if a claimant “presents adequate excuse for his delay; however, the claimant
    carries a heavy burden in such cases and is required to prove more than mere hardship;
    indeed, proof of fraud or its equivalent of the administrative authorities is required.”
    Staten v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    488 A.2d 1207
    , 1209 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 1985). If the claimant meets that burden, a nunc pro tunc appeal may be
    allowed if there are “extraordinary circumstances involving fraud or some breakdown
    in the administrative process caused by the delay in filing.” McClean, 
    908 A.2d 959
    .
    Our Supreme Court has explained that an administrative breakdown
    occurs “where an administrative board or body is negligent, acts improperly or
    unintentionally misleads a party.”     Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property
    Assessment, 
    746 A.2d 581
    , 584 (Pa. 2000).
    In order to consider whether an administrative breakdown occurred, it is
    first necessary to understand the process by which the Department makes a
    determination of eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. The Board
    concisely explained this process in its brief. (Respondent’s brief at 8-12.) Section
    501(a) of the Law requires the Department to consider the claimant’s financial
    eligibility. 43 P.S. §821(a). To do this, the Department mails a notice of financial
    6
    determination, a Form UC-44F, to both the claimant and his employer. The employer
    also receives an employer charge document. In response, the claimant and the
    employer each may file an appeal to dispute the substance of the notice. Alternatively,
    without filing an appeal, the employer may submit a request for relief from charges.
    Next, section 501(b) of the Law requires the Department to determine the
    claimant’s substantive eligibility, which is based upon the circumstances surrounding
    his unemployment. The Department sends a Form UC-45S to the employer, which
    indicates the claimant’s stated explanation for unemployment and requests
    confirmation of such from the employer. In Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation
    Board of Review, 
    920 A.2d 162
    (Pa. 2007), our Supreme Court explained that this
    process should “operate quickly, simply, and 
    efficiently.” 920 A.2d at 168
    .
    In this case, Claimant asserts that there was a breakdown in the operations
    of the Department. He argues that the Department’s approval of his benefits—on two
    occasions—led him to believe that Employer did not challenge his rights to receive
    those benefits. He notes that he did not receive notice of Employer’s challenge until
    almost one year after his initial application for benefits, several months after he was
    approved for EUC benefits, and a few months after his employment with Employer
    was reinstated.
    Claimant applied for benefits on February 26, 2013, notifying the
    Department that he was unemployed due to a lack of work. Pursuant to section 501(a)
    of the Law, the Department issued a financial determination holding that Claimant was
    financially eligible for benefits. Next, the Department notified Employer of Claimant’s
    application. It is undisputed that Employer did not contest the assertions made by
    Claimant in his application.       The Department began paying unemployment
    compensation benefits to Claimant for the week ending on March 9, 2013. After his
    7
    entitlement to benefits expired, Claimant filed for EUC benefits beginning on
    September 7, 2013.
    Claimant returned to work in October 2013.                 On October 7, 2013,
    Employer filed a request for relief from charges. The request indicated that Claimant’s
    termination resulted from willful misconduct. The Department’s benefits division
    received the request over three months later on January 10, 2014.7 Pursuant to the
    mandates of section 501(c) of the Law, the Department began an investigation and sent
    notifications and questionnaires to both Claimant and Employer. Claimant failed to
    respond to such documents. Employer responded on January 27, 2014, reiterating that
    it terminated Claimant due to willful misconduct.                 On January 29, 2014, the
    Department rendered the aforementioned six notices of determination. Claimant had
    until February 13, 2014, to file a timely appeal, but did not do so until six days later on
    February 19, 2014.
    We considered a similar factual scenario in Ruffner v. Unemployment
    Compensation Review Board, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1566 C.D. 2016, filed June 22, 2017).
    In Ruffner, the claimant was laid off from his employment on August 28, 2014. Upon
    his separation, he applied for unemployment compensation benefits by phone. He
    began receiving benefits beginning with the week ending on October 18, 2014. His
    benefits were exhausted by April 11, 2015. On May 19, 2016, the claimant received a
    request for information from the Department, but he did not respond to that request.
    On May 31, 2016, the Department issued three notices of determination finding the
    claimant ineligible for benefits, informing him that he had been overpaid, and imposing
    7
    We acknowledge that the Department could have sent Employer’s request for relief from
    charges to its benefits department in a timelier manner. However, any delay was not intentional, and
    Claimant suffered no harm because of it, as he had already received unemployment compensation
    benefits prior to Employer’s request.
    8
    a monetary penalty. The claimant appealed the notices of determination, arguing that
    he was laid off and did not voluntarily quit his job.
    The referee affirmed the Department’s decisions, and the Board affirmed
    as well. The claimant appealed to this Court, challenging the handling of his claim by
    the Department, and noting that he was permitted to receive and exhaust his
    unemployment compensation benefits without any challenge from his employer. The
    Board countered that the employer’s request for relief from charges enabled it to review
    the claimant’s unemployment compensation benefits after they expired, and noted that
    the Law does not proscribe a time limit by which the Board must make an eligibility
    determination.8
    In considering the appeal, this Court noted the difference between a
    claimant’s eligibility for benefits and an employer’s request for relief from charges:
    An employer seeking relief from charges is requesting a tax
    exemption. There is a jurisdictional distinction between
    eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits under
    section 402 and a request for relief from charges under
    section 302 of the Law. The filing of an appeal from an
    eligibility determination is separate and distinct from the
    filing of a request for relief from charges.
    Ruffner, slip op. at 10 (internal citations omitted). We found that the claimant did not
    have an opportunity to fully respond to the employer’s request for relief from charges,
    8
    We do note that, in Ruffner, the employer filed its request for relief from charges within 15
    days of receiving notice of the claimant’s application for benefits. However, the Department did not
    send a request for information to the claimant until May 19, 2016, and the employer did not return its
    responsive questionnaire to the claimant’s application for benefits until May 24, 2016. While the
    significant delay in the ultimate determination of eligibility was caused by the Department in that
    case, here, Employer did not file a request for relief from charges until Claimant’s benefits were
    exhausted, which was around the same time that he returned to work for Employer. Thus, it does not
    appear that the delay in Claimant’s case was the fault of the Department, but rather caused by
    Employer.
    9
    as he did not know in advance the reasons asserted by the employer for its challenge.
    We ultimately reversed and remanded the case for a full evidentiary hearing to address
    “the delay in handling [the claimant’s] claim; the delay in [the employer’s] filing of a
    questionnaire; and whether [the claimant] has suffered prejudice by the delay that
    impacts the Department’s jurisdiction to revoke his compensation more than a year
    after he had exhausted his benefits.” 
    Id. at slip
    op. at 13.
    While the issues on appeal in the Ruffner case differ in part from the issues
    currently before us, our reasoning in that case is persuasive here.9 In this case, similar
    to the claimant in Ruffner, Claimant received unemployment compensation benefits
    and Employer did not challenge his receipt of those benefits, until the benefits were
    exhausted. Also similar is the fact that Employer did not contest Claimant’s eligibility
    for benefits, but rather filed a request for relief from charges.
    As we noted in Ruffner, the filing of a request for relief from charges does
    not have the same effect as contesting a claimant’s eligibility for benefits. Here, on the
    same day Claimant applied for benefits, the Department sent Employer a notice to
    indicate that Claimant applied for benefits, asserting that he was unemployed due to
    lack of work, and to determine whether the information provided by Claimant was
    accurate. Employer failed to respond to that notice and provided no evidence to
    contradict Claimant’s assertions in his application.               Employer did not dispute
    Claimant’s eligibility for benefits until it filed its request for relief from charges—in
    the same month that Claimant was called back to work for Employer—asserting that
    Claimant was not eligible for benefits because he was terminated for willful
    misconduct. At the time that the request was filed, Claimant had already exhausted his
    9
    Pursuant to section 414(a) of the Internal Operating Procedures of this Court, an unreported
    opinion of this Court may be cited for its persuasive value and not as binding precedent. 210 Pa.
    Code §69.414(a).
    10
    unemployment compensation benefits and had been receiving EUC benefits—without
    any challenge from Employer. The record contains no information to explain why
    Employer failed to file a responsive questionnaire to Claimant’s application for benefits
    at the time the claim was made.
    To further complicate matters in this case, Employer, through its
    controller, Elisa Kascik, later issued a letter acknowledging that it inaccurately
    informed the Department that Claimant was terminated, stating: “Please be advised
    that [Claimant’s] employment was terminated on February 22, 2013[,] due to lack of
    work. It was erroneously reported earlier that his employment was terminated due to
    misconduct.” (C.R. at Item No. 8, Exhibit A.)
    Based upon our analysis in Ruffner, we find that the apparent confusion
    in this case—in that Claimant received benefits for about seven months with no
    challenge from Employer, Employer wrongfully identified the cause of discharge in its
    request for relief from charges, and the Department found Claimant eligible for benefits
    and several months later found him not to be eligible for the same—constitutes a
    breakdown of the administrative process, and warrants the allowance of Claimant’s
    appeal nunc pro tunc.10
    Conclusion
    Because the evidence of record in this case indicates a breakdown in the
    administrative process of the Department, the Board erred in affirming the referee’s
    orders dismissing Claimant’s appeals as untimely, and refusing to consider the same
    10
    In finding that a nunc pro tunc appeal is appropriate in this case, we need not address the
    other issues raised by Claimant in his appeal to this Court. Rather, any relevant issues that remain
    can be addressed in his appeal of the Department’s notices of determination.
    11
    nunc pro tunc. Accordingly, the Board’s orders are reversed, and the matters are
    remanded to the Board for consideration of the merits.
    ________________________________
    PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    Judge Cohn Jubelirer concurs in result only.
    12
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Mathew E. Petro,                         :
    Petitioner            :
    :    Nos. 1819 & 1820 C.D. 2016
    v.                           :
    :
    Unemployment Compensation                :
    Board of Review,                         :
    Respondent              :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 8th day of December, 2017, the orders of the
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dated October 4, 2016, are
    hereby reversed, and the matters are remanded to the Board for consideration of the
    merits of the appeals of Mathew E. Petro nunc pro tunc.
    Jurisdiction relinquished.
    ________________________________
    PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 1819 and 1820 C.D. 2016

Judges: McCullough, J.

Filed Date: 12/8/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/8/2017