M.E. Petro v. UCBR, 1819 and 1820 C.D. 2016

Background

Claimant Mathew E. Petro applied for unemployment benefits on Feb 26, 2013; Department issued a financial determination awarding benefits and paid benefits from March through August 2013, then EUC thereafter.
Employer (Infiniti of Willow Grove) did not respond to the Department’s initial notice and did not contest eligibility while benefits were being paid; Claimant was recalled to work in October 2013.
Employer later filed a request for relief from charges on Oct 7, 2013, asserting Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct; the benefits division received that request on Jan 10, 2014.
On Jan 29, 2014 the Department issued six determinations: disqualifying Claimant under §402(e), establishing overpayments and penalties, and denying EUC. Notices set an appeal deadline of Feb 13, 2014.
Claimant received the notices but did not open them until Feb 18, 2014 and filed appeals on Feb 19, 2014 (six days late). Referee and Board dismissed the appeals as untimely; this Court vacated and remanded for consideration of an administrative breakdown and ultimately held that nunc pro tunc relief was warranted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s untimely appeals may be allowed nunc pro tunc due to administrative breakdown/fraud-equivalent	Petro argued Department’s prior approvals and Employer’s long delay/misreporting caused confusion and a breakdown, excusing late appeal	Board/Department argued appeal period is mandatory and Claimant failed to show fraud or equivalent; employer’s post‑exhaustion request for relief from charges was valid	Court held administrative breakdown occurred (confusing approvals, employer’s delayed/misstated challenge), permitting nunc pro tunc appeals and remanding for merits review
Whether Claimant was laid off (not discharged for misconduct)	Petro contended facts show layoff and Employer later acknowledged termination was due to lack of work	Employer asserted willful misconduct (time theft) supporting §402(e) disqualification	Court did not decide merits of misconduct; remanded so merits can be litigated after nunc pro tunc allowance
Jurisdiction of referee given Employer’s failure to appeal Department’s initial eligibility determination within 15 days	Petro argued referee lacked jurisdiction because Employer did not timely appeal initial financial determination	Board argued employer’s request for relief from charges is distinct and Department may later investigate substantive eligibility	Court differentiated employer charge relief from eligibility appeals and did not foreclose referee jurisdiction; primary ruling centered on allowing late appeal due to breakdown
Whether delay was attributable to the Department (vs Employer) such that Department negligence excuses late appeal	Petro pointed to Department’s later determinations after prior approvals as operational failure	Department argued employer caused delay by filing request late and Department processed it when received; no intentional misconduct by Department	Court found the combined circumstances (benefits paid, employer’s silence then erroneous report, later determinations) produced an administrative breakdown warranting relief despite mixed causation

Key Cases Cited

McClean v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 908 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (fifteen-day appeal period is mandatory; nunc pro tunc relief requires fraud or equivalent/extraordinary circumstances)
Staten v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 488 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (claimant bears heavy burden to show fraud or equivalent to excuse late appeal)
Union Electric Corp. v. Board of Property Assessment, 746 A.2d 581 (Pa. 2000) (administrative breakdown occurs when an administrative body negligently or improperly misleads a party)
Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa. 2007) (departmental eligibility process should operate quickly, simply, and efficiently)