Opinion
June 3, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Failure to advise of rights — Questions raised in supplemental briefs.
1. An unemployment compensation claimant may raise in a supplemental brief the contention that he was not properly advised of his rights by the referee, and an order denying compensation will be vacated and the case remanded when it does appear that the claimant was not represented by counsel and was not properly advised of his rights. [65]
Submitted on briefs, May 7, 1982, to Judges ROGERS, MacPHAIL and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2961 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert W. Hughes, No. B-189144.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Order vacated. Case remanded.
Lee Moses, for petitioner.
William J. Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
In this appeal, Claimant by supplemental brief, contends that he was not advised of the rights afforded to him under 34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a) . Our review of the record indicates that the Claimant was not represented by counsel at the referee's hearing and that he was not advised of his rights.
Robert Hughes.
34 Pa. Code § 101.21(a) provides:
In any hearing the tribunal may examine the parties and their witnesses. Where a party is not represented by counsel the tribunal before whom the hearing is being held should advise him as to his rights, aid him in examining and cross-examining witnesses, and give him every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of its official duties.
In Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commw. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981) we held that where the claimant complained that the referee failed to advise her as an uncounseled claimant of her procedural rights, the case would be remanded. In Peda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commw. 184, 439 A.2d 888 (1982) we held that this issue could be raised, although not briefed, at oral argument.
As we have noted, the issue has been raised in the instant case by supplemental brief and must be remanded, therefore, in light of our prior holdings.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated October 29, 1980, No. B-189144, denying unemployment compensation benefits to Robert Hughes is vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.