34 Pa. Code § 101.24
The provisions of this § 101.24 amended under section 203(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P.S. § 763(d)) and section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 186).
The provisions of this § 101.24 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435; amended July 14, 1978, effective July 15, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 2002; amended March 11, 2022, effective March 12, 2022, 52 Pa.B. 1480. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (330008) and (259525).
Additional Hearings Inappropriate
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review appropriately granted an additional hearing while still requiring additional testimony and evidence on the employer’s claim that it did not receive notice. Verdecchia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s affirmance of referee’s decision to dismiss due to claimant’s failure to appear for hearing was improper where claimant made timely request for reopening the hearing and Board’s order failed to indicate its conclusion in writing along with the reasons for that conclusion and failed to append its ruling to the record as required by this section. Cannady v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
In upholding the discharge of an employe for willful misconduct, the Court noted that this regulation did not require the referee to reopen a hearing for a party who was absent from the original hearing where that party did not present in writing good cause for his or her absence from the hearing. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 458 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
There was no reason to require re-opening because of the absence of the employer from the referee’s hearing, since the referee had evidence which could support the position of the employer, the employe had the burden of proving the case and the employe did not object at the hearing to the absence of the employer. Shriner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 400 A.2d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
General Comment
These regulations govern requests for an additional hearing by a party who did not attend a scheduled hearing. Verdecchia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Proper Cause
Employer’s inconsistent explanations for failure to appear at scheduled hearing did not rise to level of ‘‘proper cause’’ required by this section, and the Board should not have remanded the case for a second hearing. Sanders v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 524 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where written application for reopening of a hearing was made to the Board and there is no evidence that the referee or the Board appended to the record the request, any supporting material, and the ruling on the request, a dismissal of the claimant’s appeal will be reversed and the record remanded for a determination of ‘‘proper cause’’ for claimant’s failure to attend the referee’s hearing. Ortiz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 481 A.2d 1383, 1385 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Regulation Inapplicable
Referee did not reopen hearing under this section, where the referee agreed to continue hearing in order to receive employer’s testimony. Fleeger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 528 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
This section cited in 34 Pa. Code § 101.104 (relating to allowance or disallowance of appeal).