Weavertown
Transp. Leasing v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – June 8,2015 – unreported memorandum
opinion
Court
affirmed UCBR decision holding that claimant had good cause to quit his job,
where employer repeatedly failed to pay
claimant proper wages at the time they were due.
Even
though Employer issued supplemental checks to resolve some of the alleged
payroll discrepancies and, therefore, did not technically refuse to pay
Claimant, it is undisputed that Employer repeatedly failed to pay Claimant the
proper amount owed to him when it was due.
Moreover,
to hold that Claimant is ineligible for UC benefits because he would not accept
being repeatedly, untimely paid the full amount for his work efforts would be
contrary to this Court’s precedent and Section 3(a) of the Wage Law, which
requires that “employer shall pay all wages . . . due to his
employes on regular paydays designated in advance by the employer.”
43 P.S. § 260.3(a) (emphasis
added). This Court has previously stated that “[a] contrary view would permit
an employer to require a worker to submit to denial of a [timely] day’s pay
under pain of loss of unemployment benefits. As the scriptural admonition
states, the laborer is worthy of his hire.” LaTruffe, 453 A.2d at 48 (holding
that a claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit his employment
where the employer wrongfully refused to pay him for one day’s work).
The court has held
that the “failure to make timely payment for services rendered creates a real
and substantial pressure upon an employee to terminate employment” and “repeat
occurrences [of such failures] would cause a reasonable person to terminate
employment.” Shupp v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 A.3d 462,
465 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). The “underpayment of wages over a period of time [is]
also sufficient cause to quit.” LaTruffe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, 453 A.2d 47, 47 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (citing Frey v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 383 A.2d 1326, 1327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978)). A
claimant will not be ineligible for UC benefits as long as the claimant
“take[s] ‘common sense’ action that would have given the employer an
opportunity to understand the nature of [his] objections and to take prudent
steps to resolve the problem.” Unclaimed Freight Company v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 677 A.2d 377, 379 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (citing
Tedesco Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, 552 A.2d 754, 756 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989)); Homan v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 527 A.2d 1109, 1110 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Pursuant
to Section 3(a) of the Wage Payment and Collection Law (Wage Law),4 which is
implicated whenever a claimant asserts that he quit due to an employer’s
failure to properly pay wages, [e]very employer shall pay all wages . . . due to
his employes on regular paydays designated in advance by the employer.
Overtime wages may be considered as wages earned and payable in the next
succeeding pay period. All wages . . . earned in any pay period shall
be due and payable within the number of days after the expiration of said
pay period as provided in a written contract of employment . . . . 43 P.S. §
260.3(a) (emphasis added); Shupp, 18 A.3d at 464. Applying Section 3(a) of the
Wage Law, this Court has held that “employees are well within their rights to
demand timely payment for work performed” and that “payment as agreed for
services rendered is the very essence of an employment relationship, such that
no employee can be compelled to work without payment.” Shupp, 18 A.3d at 464
(emphasis omitted).
_____________________
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
