UC - TRA

Showers, et al. v. UCBR – March 5, 2013 (18 pp.)

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/651CD12_3-5-13.pdf

Dean Showers and other claimants petition for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s (UCBR) March 14, 2012 orders affirming the Referee’s decision finding Claimants ineligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance, and to receive basic and additional Trade Readjustment Allowances.

There are three issues before this Court: (1) whether a lockout is a qualifying “layoff” or “severance” under Section 247(10) of the Trade Act of 1974 (Trade Act), 19 U.S.C. § 2319(10); (2) whether “lack of work” under Section 247(2) of the Trade Act, 19 U.S.C. § 2319(2), concerns work available at the plant or work available to the employees; and (3) whether a union member forfeits Trade Act benefits when he offers to work under an expired union contract. We affirm.

UC - vol. quit - health reasons - inadequate findings - remand

Watkins v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 5, 2013

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/14CD12_3-5-13.pdf

The findings of the UCBR do not address the factual circumstances that one must analyze with regard to the parties’ respective burdens of proof.

As to Claimant’s burden, the findings do not address:
            (1) whether Claimant’s health reasons were of sufficient dimension to compel her to leave her employment;
            (2) whether Claimant sufficiently informed Employer of her health problems; and
            (3) whether Claimant is able and available for work if Employer can make a reasonable accommodation. See Lee Hosp., 637 A.2d at 698.

As to Employer’s burden (assuming Claimant met her burden), the findings do not address whether Employer made a reasonable attempt to identify and propose possible accommodations for Claimant’s health problems. Id. at 699.

Without such findings, we are unable to engage in effective appellate review. See Stankiewicz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 529 A.2d 614, 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (holding where Board’s findings are inadequate, this Court cannot perform appellate review and must remand for additional findings).

Accordingly, we must vacate the Board’s order and Accordingly, we must vacate the Board’s order and remand the matter to the Board for the issuance of a new decision, including new findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board, on its own or on further remand to a Referee, may take additional evidence or issue a new decision based upon the record before it if the Board determines that the record is sufficient for such purposes.