Summary
In Centorame v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984), after separation from a previous employer, the claimant printed business cards and advertised as a provider of home improvement services.
Summary of this case from Cristea v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
May 9, 1984.
Unemployment compensation — Self-employment — Advertisement.
1. Public advertisement of a pursuit, without more, does not in itself amount to the launching of a new, self-employment enterprise for unemployment compensation purposes. [338]
Submitted on briefs April 5, 1984, to Judges CRAIG, BARRY and PALLADINO, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 567 C.D. 1983, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Guido Centorame, No. B-213686.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Stephen L. Shields, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
In this appeal by Guido Centorame from a denial of unemployment compensation benefits by a referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the sole question is whether he was ineligible because "engaged in self-employment," in that, after separation from his previous employer, all that he did was that he "had business cards made and placed an advertisement in a newspaper . . . holding himself out for home improvement work," according to the referee's uncontested finding.
Section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. 802(h).
Noting that a conclusion as to self-employment presents a question of law subject to review by this court, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Minier, 23 Pa. Commw. 514, 517, 352 A.2d 577, 579 (1976), we reverse the decision because public advertisement of a pursuit, without more, does not in itself amount to the launching of the new enterprise, but only evidence of an intention to do so. Parmelee, Miller, Welsh Kratz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa. Commw. 570, 405 A.2d 1052 (1979). Although Parmelee also involved an ultimate revocation of the intention, in that case, to start a law practice, Parmelee nevertheless stands for the principle that advertisement alone does not constitute doing business, where, as here, there is no performance of work or active solicitation of business, as through bidding. Cf. Logut v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 575, 411 A.2d 881 (1980), where the claimant had been personally active in the solicitation of business.
The decision is reversed, and this case is remanded for the computation of benefits.
ORDER
Now, May 9, 1984, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated January 17, 1983, No. B-213686, is reversed, and this case is remanded for the computation of benefits.
Jurisdiction relinquished.