Hackler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
24 A.3d 1112
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Hackler was employed as a full-time mechanic at Marlin's Auto Center and was terminated on June 21, 2010.
- UC Service Center found Hackler ineligible under §402(e) for unsatisfactory work performance based on multiple customer complaints and warnings.
- Hackler appeared pro se at a hearing before a UC Referee; Employer testified that termination was for customer complaints and an inspection-sticker incident.
- The Referee found willful misconduct and affirmed the UC Service Center determination; the Board affirmed the Referee.
- Hackler argued the Referee failed to provide due process under 34 Pa.Code § 101.21; the court evaluated whether the hearing complied with that regulation and the related case law.
- The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court reversed the Board and remanded for a new hearing due to the Referee’s failure to provide reasonable assistance to a pro se claimant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Referee comply with 34 Pa.Code § 101.21 in assisting a pro se claimant? | Hackler contends the Referee failed to aid and guide him, violating §101.21. | Board argues the Referee advised rights and allowed evidence, meeting §101.21 requirements. | Referee violated §101.21; remand for a new hearing. |
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove willful misconduct as the basis for ineligibility? | Hackler argues the evidence does not establish willful misconduct. | Board asserts substantial evidence supports willful misconduct. | Issue remanded for reconsideration at new hearing; decision not decided on the merits here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennett v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 445 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (referee must aid pro se claimants and extract favorable facts when possible)
- Ceja v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1981) (referee must provide every assistance compatible with duties; avoid undue interruption)
- Tate v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 477 A.2d 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (full and fair hearing required; referee should explore suggested issues)
- Diaz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 504 A.2d 973 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (weight given to employer-provided reasons; evidentiary issues in hearsay)