Murphy Marine Services, Inc. v. UCBR, Murphy Marine Services, Inc. v. UCBR

Background

Claimant, a basic unit member of Longshoremen’s Local 1291, filed for UC benefits after he did not work part of the week ending May 11, 2013; he had historically worked intermittently for multiple PMTA employers.
Employer (Murphy Marine) is a PMTA member in Wilmington; PMTA agreements govern day-to-day hiring at Philadelphia and Wilmington hiring halls and give local basic members preferential but not guaranteed hiring.
On May 7, 2013 Claimant registered at the Philadelphia hiring hall, was not hired there, and chose not to travel ~30 miles to Wilmington that day because hiring there was uncertain.
The Service Center and Referee found Claimant eligible under Section 402(a) (refusal of suitable work by an unemployed person); Employer appealed arguing Sections 402(b) or 401(d)(1) should apply because work was allegedly guaranteed and refusal was tantamount to quitting.
On remand the Board received PMTA agreement excerpts and fact testimony, found Claimant was unemployed between assignments (so Section 402(a) governs), concluded no guaranteed offer existed in Wilmington, and found Claimant was able and available for work; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Employer's Argument	Claimant/Board's Argument	Held
Which statutory provision governs (402(a) vs. 402(b))	Claimant was effectively employed on day-to-day assignments; refusal to continue employment should be treated as quitting under §402(b)	Claimant was unemployed between assignments and refusal was a failure to accept suitable work while unemployed, so §402(a) applies	§402(a) applies; claimant was unemployed between assignments and not continuously employed by Employer
Whether an offer of suitable work existed on May 7, 2013	Wilmington hiring/practice (including ability to “bump” casuals) created a contractual or guaranteed offer Claimant refused	Hiring was uncertain, competitive, and not guaranteed; postings/hiring lists were solicitation, not firm offers	No definite offer of suitable work existed; postings/hiring pool insufficient to constitute an enforceable offer
Whether Claimant was able and available for work (attachment to labor market)	Implicit that because Claimant didn’t travel he was not available	Claimant registered at Philadelphia hall that morning, demonstrating attachment and availability	Claimant was able and available (registered), so not disqualified under §401(d)(1)

Key Cases Cited

Hosp. Serv. Ass’n of Ne. Pa. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 476 A.2d 516 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (distinguishes applicants unemployed who refuse new work (§402(a)) from employees who refuse continued employment (§402(b)))
Teitell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 546 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (refusal of offer from successor employer did not constitute quitting; §402(a) review appropriate)
Hammerstone v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 378 A.2d 1040 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (refusal of position with another company after layoff not a voluntary quit for §402(b))
McKeesport Hosp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 619 A.2d 813 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (job postings may be mere solicitations where hiring depends on factors beyond seniority; thus no definitive offer)
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 426 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (posted openings do not constitute offers when employer reserves evaluative discretion)
Centre Area Transp. Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 531 A.2d 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (contrasting decision where collective bargaining agreement required vacancies be filled solely by seniority, making posting an offer)
Markby v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 564 A.2d 1340 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (§402(a) requires claimant demonstrate good faith and a genuine desire to work)
Wilder & Miller, P.C. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 525 A.2d 852 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (attachment to labor force requires ability to work and reasonable local opportunity)