Opinion
February 14, 1986.
Unemployment compensation — Financial eligibility — Work weeks — Work relief or work training program.
1. Weeks worked in a federally funded program for older persons to keep them off relief are weeks properly found to be spent in a federal work relief or work training program which do not yield wages for purposes of assessing financial eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits, and the fact that the claimant was promoted to foreman in the program is irrelevant to the determination. [166]
Judge COLINS dissented.
Submitted on briefs November 20, 1985, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR., Judge COLINS, and Senior Judge BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 3067 C.D. 1984, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Frank A. Woloszyn, No. B-234558.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Request for reconsideration filed and denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
James Bukac, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Frank A. Woloszyn (petitioner) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision that he was ineligible for benefits.
The Board found that, during the base year relevant to the petitioner's application, he had a total of twelve credit weeks, less than the minimum eighteen credit weeks necessary to establish financial eligibility pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), 43 P. S. § 804(c). The petitioner did not receive credit for thirty weeks during which he worked for Pennsylvania Green Thumb, Inc. (Green Thumb) such denial being based on the conclusion that such work constituted participation in a federally assisted work relief or work training program.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 804(c). A "credit week" is a calendar week in which an individual was paid in employment, asdefined by the Law, wages of at least fifty dollars. Section 4 (g.1) of the Law, 43 P. S. § 753 (g.1). The pertinent provisions of the Law exclude from "employment" participation in an unemployment work relief or work training program wholly or partly financed or assisted by a federal or state agency or any political subdivision thereof. Section 4(1)(4)(8)(e) of the Law, 43 P. S. § 753 (1)(4)(8)(e).
The petitioner does not challenge Green Thumb's status as a program funded under federal auspices, but he contends here that the Board capriciously disregarded his testimony that his employment at Green Thumb did not constitute participation in a work training program.
Our review of the record reveals that, as part of his application for benefits, the petitioner stated that Green Thumb is a program hiring persons over 55 years old in order to keep them off of relief. However, inasmuch as participation in either a work relief or a work training program may not yield wages for purposes of assessing financial eligibility, Section 4(1)(4)(8)(e) of the Law, 43 P. S. § 753(1)(4)(8)(e), we do not believe that the petitioner's testimony was capriciously disregarded.
We must also disagree with the petitioner's contention that the referee failed to properly assist him in eliciting testimony concerning his "promotion" or his duties with Green Thumb. The Board, however, found that the petitioner worked as a foreman for Green Thumb at $3.85 per hour, above the minimum wage, and further information as to the date of his "promotion" or as to the nature of his duties would be irrelevant to the determination of his eligibility for benefits here.
Last, we find no merit to the petitioner's bare assertion that the classifications created by Section 4(1)(8)(e) of the Law are unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to claimants in his position.
We will, therefore, affirm the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 14th day of February, 1986, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
Judge COLINS dissents.