M.P. Jakubowicz v. UCBR
618 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 17, 2017Background
- Claimant Michael Jakubowicz was separated from Purolite on May 29, 2015 and filed for unemployment benefits on May 31, 2015. The Department initially found him financially eligible but later issued a July 13, 2015 determination disqualifying him for failing to register with Pennsylvania CareerLink within 30 days of filing.
- Claimant says he attempted to register in mid-July 2015 (July 17) but encountered duplicate-account/system problems; the Department’s CWDS printouts show activity on July 17 and a later update on September 29, 2015.
- Claimant reopened his claim on August 29, 2015; the Department issued a September 10, 2015 determination granting benefits beginning the waiting week ending August 29, 2015, and Claimant later received benefits starting the week ending October 11, 2015.
- When expected benefit payments for August 29–October 10 were not paid, Claimant filed an appeal on December 24, 2015 seeking those payments. The Referee construed the appeal as a late challenge to the July 13, 2015 determination and dismissed it as untimely, finding registration occurred on September 29, 2015.
- The UCBR affirmed the Referee, concluding Claimant gave no credible reason for failing to timely appeal the July 13, 2015 decision. The Commonwealth Court vacated the UCBR order and remanded for further proceedings, holding that the Referee and UCBR erred by treating the appeal as untimely from the July 13 determination rather than as a challenge to nonpayment under the September 10 determination and that a hearing is needed on whether the registration/disqualification was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Jakubowicz's Argument | UCBR/Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Claimant’s December 24, 2015 appeal properly dismissed as untimely from the July 13, 2015 determination? | He filed the appeal after learning benefits authorized by the Sept. 10 determination were not being paid; he had attempted to register in July and was confused by system/duplicate-ID problems. | Claimant failed to timely appeal the July 13 decision (deadline July 28, 2015); record shows registration not complete until Sept. 29, 2015, so appeal is untimely. | Court: UCBR/Referee erred in treating the December appeal as untimely from July 13; vacated and remanded for further proceedings. |
| Did Claimant complete CareerLink registration within the required 30-day window? | He attempted to register in July (created an ID and had duplicate profiles); CareerLink staff later confirmed he was enrolled July 17 and that accounts needed merging. | Department/CWDS records indicate complete registration only on Sept. 29, 2015. | Court: Record is unclear and Claimant produced evidence and credible testimony of dual registrations; issue requires remand and further fact-finding. |
| Should failure to timely register be treated as automatic disqualification or subject to waiver/good-cause inquiry? | Where system errors or confusion occurred, waiver or good-cause should be considered; claimant’s circumstances may justify relief. | Department historically applied strict registration requirement; argued timeliness is mandatory. | Court: Cited authority supports a case-by-case good-cause/waiver inquiry under Section 401(b)(6); failure to register is not per se disqualifying—remand for consideration. |
| Was remand required and what relief should follow? | Requested enforcement of the Sept. 10 determination (payment for weeks in dispute). | UCBR had affirmed dismissal; no payment ordered. | Court: Vacated UCBR order and remanded to UCBR to remand to a Referee for hearing on whether Claimant was properly disqualified and whether benefits should be paid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Department of Labor & Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 131 A.3d 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (failure to register is not per se disqualifying; waiver/good-cause may apply)
- Pipeline Sys. v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 120 A.3d 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (testimony credited by board can constitute substantial evidence)
- Croft v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 662 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (limitations on consideration of post‑hearing evidence)
- Lehr v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 625 A.2d 173 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (remedial statutes should not be frustrated by slavish adherence to technical rules)
- Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 50 A.2d 336 (Pa. 1947) (good-cause must be interpreted to preserve the statute’s fundamental purpose)