Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 413
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- PHFA (Employer) seeks review of Board's order granting UC benefits to Claimant DiGiacomo under 402(b) after he voluntarily resigned.
- Service Center initially found DiGiacomo ineligible; Referee reversed and found him eligible; Board affirmed the Referee’s findings.
- Findings of Fact: DiGiacomo had over 30 years of service and was entitled to full retirement benefits; a side letter tied retirement benefit calculation to pre-2009 pay rates, with a later formula causing a significant reduction once the side letter expired.
- As of Oct. 29, 2009, the CBA had expired and negotiations for a new CBA were ongoing; there was no imminent agreement.
- DiGiacomo retired Oct. 29, 2009, believing pension benefits would be significantly reduced if he delayed retirement; the Board held this was not speculative and relied on favorable authority, but the court reverses as speculative future terms undermine a necessitous and compelling reason.
- Court reverses Board, holding that DiGiacomo’s retirement based on speculative pension changes during ongoing negotiations does not meet Section 402(b) necessitous and compelling standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether resignation based on speculative pension changes during ongoing negotiations suffices under 402(b). | DiGiacomo argued ongoing negotiations and potential pension changes created a necessitous, compelling reason. | Board erred by treating speculative future CBA terms as sufficient. | Reversed; speculation alone does not establish necessitous and compelling cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 883 A.2d 714 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (mere speculation about future benefits not necessitous and compelling)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (unilateral change in benefits can be substantial; not on point for ongoing negotiations)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (retention of vested health benefits can be necessitous and compelling when changes are substantial)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 A.3d 95 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (ongoing negotiations; future CBA terms speculative; retirement based on perceived favorable pension terms)
- Duquesne Light Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 436 A.2d 257 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (early authority recognizing proposals during negotiations are not final decisions)