Opinion
No. 298 C.D. 2012
08-13-2012
Gail L. Grau, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Gail L. Grau (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision of the Referee denying her unemployment compensation benefits because she did not earn any covered base year wages and was financially ineligible under Section 401(a) and Section 404(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). Because there was not substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Claimant's work for a nonprofit organization affiliated with a church did not qualify as employment under Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law, we reverse and remand to the Board to award benefits.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§801(a) and 804(e). Section 401(a) of the Law provides:
Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who has, within his base year, been paid wages for employment as required by Section 404(c) of this act: Provided, however, That not less than twenty per centum (20%) of the employe's total base year wages have been paid in one or more quarters, other than the highest quarter in such employe's base year.
The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma (Employer) is the name of a New Christian Church (Church) as well as a separate nonprofit corporation (Corporation). The Corporation's sole purpose is to manage the Church's endowment to provide financial support for the benefit of the Church. Claimant, not a Church member, was employed full-time as a staff secretary in Employer's corporate office from June 11, 2007, until June 30, 2011, at a final biweekly salary of $1,307.38. Due to corporate restructuring, Claimant's position was eliminated on June 30, 2011, and she filed for unemployment compensation benefits with the UC Service Center. The UC Service Center denied benefits, finding that Claimant's total base year wages for the period of April 1, 2010, through March 31, 2011, were $30,343.87, with a high quarter of $8,978.13, but that those wages were exempt pursuant to Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law, 43 P.S. §753(l)(4)(8)(a). That section of the Law provides that employment shall not include:
The Referee's Finding of Fact No. 1 lists Claimant's final biweekly salary as $1,387.38, but the hearing transcript indicates that it was $1,307.38. (October 12, 2011 Hearing Transcript at 6).
Service performed in the employ of (i) a church or convention or association of churches or (ii) an organization which is operated primarily for religious purposes and which is operated, supervised, controlled or principally supported by a church or convention or association of churches.Claimant appealed.
Before the Referee, Claimant was the only person to testify or offer evidence. She testified that the Corporation's endowment came from the family of the Church's founder, not from the Church; that the Corporation invested and managed the endowment; and that those funds were used to support the Church. Claimant testified that the Corporation is operated by a nine-member Board of Directors, which includes representatives from the Church, while the Church itself is governed by the International Counsel of Priests. Claimant also introduced a copy of the Staff Secretary Position description, which summarized the position's duties as:
Perform[ing] diverse secretarial duties as assigned by the Corporation's Executive Director to assist the Lord's New Church Which is Nova Hierosolyma's (Corporation) efforts to achieve the primary purpose of supporting Nova Domini Ecclesia Quae Est Nova Hierosolyma (Church).(Petitioner's Reproduced Record at 69a). The description also outlined Claimant's specific job responsibilities, which included communications and correspondence, general office duties such as maintaining corporate records and the corporate calendar, and providing meeting support. Id. Finally, she provided copies of two other decisions in which Referees found that her former co-workers, including her immediate supervisor, were eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
Finding that Claimant's "services were performed within a church or an organization of churches, which is primarily for religious purposes and operated, supervised, controlled or principally supported by a church," (November 22, 2011 Referee's Decision at 3), the Referee determined that the wages Claimant earned during her base year period were not covered for the purpose of unemployment within the meaning of Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the Board, which adopted the findings and conclusions of the Referee and affirmed the denial of benefits. This appeal by Claimant followed.
Our scope of review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, constitutional rights were violated, or necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence. Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 833 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
On appeal, Claimant contends that the Board erred in finding that she was disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits coverage under Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law because she was employed by a church or an organization primarily operated for religious purposes and supported by a church. She contends that finding was at odds with the undisputed evidence that the Corporation is a distinct entity from the Church, its purpose is not religious but rather to manage the endowment, and that nothing in the record suggests that the Corporation is supported by the Church. Moreover, she states that there is no evidence that the Church played any role in the terms of her employment or annual renewal of her employment agreement or that she performed any work for the Church.
An employer, despite having an affiliation with a religious organization, is not subject to the exemption under Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law if it does not operate primarily for a religious purpose. See Imani Christian Academy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d at 1171, 1175-76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (Claimant's employment with Christian school "operated primarily for educational purposes with a strong religious influence" not exempt from coverage under Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law); Pittsburgh Leadership Foundation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 224, 225-26 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 541 Pa. 646, 663 A.2d 697 (1995) (Claimant employed by "Christian-based organization" whose "primary function and activities cannot be deemed those of a religious organization" eligible for benefits). It is the Board's role to determine whether an organization operates primarily for a religious purpose.
The Board is the ultimate factfinder in unemployment compensation cases and is empowered to make credibility determinations. The Board's findings of fact are conclusive upon appeal; however, the legal conclusions drawn by the Board from its findings of fact remain subject to judicial review. Elser v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 967 A.2d 1064, 1070 n.8 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009).
Here, the Board's finding that Claimant's "services were performed within a church or an organization of churches, which is primarily for religious purposes and operated, supervised, controlled or principally supported by a church" is not supported by substantial evidence and is inconsistent with its findings of fact. The Board made specific findings that "The Lord's New Church Which Is Nova Hierosolyma is the same name of a non-profit corporation" and that "[C]laimant worked in a Corporate position as a Staff Secretary." (November 22, 2011 Referee's Decision, Findings of Fact Nos. 4 and 6). Claimant's uncontroverted testimony and documentary evidence revealed that she performed purely administrative duties to assist the Corporation in carrying out its primary function - providing financial support to the Church through the investment and management of its endowment. A nonprofit corporation responsible solely for managing the administration and finances of a religious organization is not "operated primarily for religious purposes," and nothing in the statutory language indicates that employment for such a corporation is exempt under Section 4(l)(4)(8)(a) of the Law.
Accordingly, we reverse the Board's decision and remand to the Board to award benefits.
Although the weight to be given the evidence and the credibility to be afforded the witnesses are within the province of the Board as finder of fact, the Board is not free to ignore overwhelming evidence in favor of a contrary result not supported by the evidence. Borello v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 490 Pa. 607, 417 A.2d 205 (1980). --------
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of August, 2012, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated January 31, 2012, at No. B-529942, is reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board to award benefits.
Jurisdiction relinquished.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
Section 404(e) of the Law provides the minimum qualifying wages and highest quarterly wage for a claimant to be eligible for benefits.