88 Pa. Commw. 199 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1985
Opinion by
Joseph Gr. Kandala (claimant) appeals here an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee’s decision holding that he was not “unemployed” as that term is defined in Section 4(u) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §753(u).
On May 27, 1982, the Hempfield School District (employer) notified the claimant, who worked as a tenured, permanent, full-time teacher, that he was being furloughed for the 1982-1983 school term due to
The Board affirmed the referee’s conclusion that, while the claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 402.1(1) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802.1(1) because he had no reasonable assurance of employment with an educational institution in the 1982-1983 school year, he was ineligible for benefits during the compensable weeks ending June 19, June 26 and July 3 because he was not then “unemployed” as that term is defined by Section 4(u) of the Law.
The only issue raised here is whether or not the Board’s application of Section 4(u) of the Law is unconstitutional in that it denies the claimant equal protection under the law. And, of course, our review includes a determination as to whether or not the Board’s adjudication is in violation of the claimant’s constitutional rights. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §704.
The claimant contends that the Board and this Court, in such cases as Partridge v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 47, 430 A.2d 735 (1981), Holets v. Unemployment
We believe, however, that the claimant has mischaracterized our holding in Partridge, Holets and Hyduchak. In each of these cases,
Under Section 4(hi) of the Law, an employee is considered “unemployed”
with respect to any week (i) during which he performs no services for which remuneration is*203 paid or payable to him and (ii) with respect to which no remuneration is paid or payable to him.
And here, where the claimant’s employment contract provided that his wages
We believe, therefore, that the Board was correct in concluding that the claimant remained employed during the weeks in question and that he consequently was not then eligible for benefits.
In view of the above discussion, we find the claimant’s equal protection argument to be without merit. We would emphasize that, under his employment contract, he was to receive remuneration throughout the summer months and that, therefore, he would not be “unemployed” pursuant to Section 4(u) of the Law until the commencement of the next contract year. Consequently, he is not similarly situated to the hypothetical factory worker who is temporarily laid off without pay, as he had contended in his equal protection argument. Accordingly, that argument must fail.
Order
And Now, this 13th day of March, 1985, the order of the Unemployment .Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
The claimant in Partridge was in a position identical to that of the claimant here — i.e. he had been furloughed and had received a lump sum payment covering his summer months salary — while the claimants in both Hyduchak and Holets expected to be re-employed in September. The Board, however, in both Hyduchak and Holets premised ineligibility on the fact that the claimants were not “unemployed” under Section 4(u) of the Law because they received their salary over a twelve month period rather than by determining they had a reasonable assurance of continued employment at an educational institution under Section 402.1(1) of the Law.
Wages are defined pursuant to Section 4(x) of the Law, 43 P.S. §753(x) as “all remuneration (including the cash value of mediums of payment other than cash . . .) paid by an employer to an individual with respect to his employment” with listed exceptions not relevant here.