Alla v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
119 A.3d 434
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Claimant filed for unemployment benefits with an effective date of June 29, 2014 using base year 2013.
- During base year, Claimant earned: Q1 $17,462; Q2 $22,555; Q3 $20,985; Q4 $0; plus a $30,728 payout for accrued leave at separation in Q3 2013.
- The local center concluded Claimant was financially ineligible under the 49.5% rule (highest quarter in base year was Q3 with $51,713).
- Claimant argued the $30,728 leave payout should not be counted as wages in Q3 2013, or should be excluded; he contends it should be prorated or excluded under applicable law.
- A referee found the leave payout constitutes wages (per Coates) and, with the payout included in Q3, base year wages totaled $91,731, rendering Claimant ineligible under 401(a) and 404.
- The Board affirmed, rejecting Eljer Industries and Pennsylvania Electric-based arguments and applying Coates to treat accrued leave as wages payable in the period earned or paid, under 34 Pa.Code § 61.3(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether accrued leave payments are wages for unemployment purposes. | Claimant argues leave pay should be prorated or excluded. | Board/Employer contends leave payments are wages under 4(x) and properly allocated to the period paid. | Leave payments are wages; properly included in the period paid. |
| Whether the Eljer and Pennsylvania Electric rules govern base year wage calculations. | Claimant relies on Eljer (proration) or Pennsylvania Electric (exclusion). | Eljer is a workers’ compensation case and not controlling for unemployment wages; Pennsylvania Electric not applicable to base year wage determination. | Eljer/Pennsylvania Electric do not apply; Coates controls the treatment of accrued leave as wages. |
| Whether Coates governs the treatment and timing of lump-sum accrued leave payments. | Claimant argues Coates should require prorating or different treatment. | Coates supports treating lump-sum leave as wages and assigning to the period under § 61.3(a). | Coates controls; lump-sum leave is wages and assigned per 34 Pa.Code § 61.3(a). |
| Whether Claimant meets the 49.5% base year earnings requirement. | If leave wages are prorated or excluded, Claimant would meet 49.5%. | Including the $30,728 leave payout places Claimant outside the 49.5% threshold. | Claimant does not meet 49.5% requirement; financially ineligible. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 742 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (lump-sum accrued leave treated as wages under §4(x))
- Eljer Industries v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board (Johnson), 670 A.2d 203 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (workers’ compensation rule; not controlling for unemployment wage calculation)
- Pennsylvania Electric Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Review Board, 458 A.2d 626 (Pa.Cmwlth.1983) (exclusion of certain vacation/sick pay not controlling for base year wages)
- Devine v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 101 A.3d 1235 (Pa.Cmwlth.2014) (distinguishes unemployment wage calculations from workers’ compensation)