69 Pa. Commw. 172 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1982
Opinion by
Carolyn L. Rohrbach (Claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which found her ineligible for compensation benefits under Section 401(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)
Claimant first argues that the referee failed to comply with the provisions of 34 Pa. Code §101.21(a) and, in particular, that portion of the rule which requires that the tribunal give a claimant “every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of its official duties.” It is clear that the referee here advised Claimant of her rights as required by our decision in Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 427, 430 A.2d 354 (1981).
Turning to the merits of the appeal, Claimant concedes that she failed to report wages earned while working part-time as a waitress. Claimant argues that she was under the impression that earnings which did not exceed her partial benefit credit need not be reported. Claimant also testified, however, that she
We think the Board’s findings are adequate to support the legal conclusion that Claimant violated the requirements of Section 401(c)
Order affirmed.
Order
It is ordered that the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-197-188, dated July 14, 1981, is hereby affirmed.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §801(c). Section 401(c) provides as follows:
Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed; and who—
*174 (c) Has made a valid application for benefits with respect to the benefit year for which compensation is claimed and has made a claim for compensation in the proper manner and on the form prescribed by the department.
In Katz we held that an uncounseled claimant must be advised “of her right to have counsel, to cross-examine adverse witnesses and to offer witnesses in her behalf.” Id. at 429, 430 A.2d at 354.
Although the referee held that Claimant violated Section 401(h) of the Law, rather than Section 401(c) as found by the Board, we think the Board committed no error in assigning a different legal ground for its finding of disqualification since the underlying issue, to wit, the effect of Claimant’s failure to report earnings, was the same before both the referee and the Board. See Libonate v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 422, 426 A.2d 247 (1981).