The
court rejected the employer’s argument that the claimant waived consideration
of the relevant issue – willful misconduct, for alleged refusal of the
claimant, a truck driver, to follow an employer order to make a delivery run –
because claimant’s petition appeal to the Board lacked specificity, as required
by Merida v. UCBR, 543 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), appeal dismissed as
improvidently granted, 570 A.2d 1320 (Pa. 1990). In his petition to
the Board, claimant wrote, in full: “Layer (sic) didn’t do his job. Need
to cross-examine ex-employer – Brad Aronson and Joe Benjeman (sic) to prove
their statements are wrong and misleading.”
The
court rejected this argument because the referee did consider and rule on the
issue, as did the Board, all pursuant to UC regs. “Merida
does not apply here. That case is limited to its factual scenario where the
claimant did not specifically raise before the Board an issue that was not
discussed by the referee in his decision.” (emphasis in
original).
Here,
as in Black Lick Trucking, Inc. v. UCBR, 667 A.2d 454 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1995),, the issue before the Service Center was whether Claimant was discharged
for willful misconduct because he did not agree to drive to New Jersey on
August 27, 2013. The referee considered this very issue and determined that
Claimant’s conduct amounted to willful misconduct. Pursuant to Board regulation
101.107(b), 35 Pa.Code §101.107(b), the Board was required to consider
whether Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct for his failure to drive
on a particular assignment, regardless of whether Claimant’s Petition for
Appeal to the Board specified this issue. The Board did precisely what it was
required to do. There was no waiver.”
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
Appeals from a referee’s decision to
the Board are governed by the Board’s regulations. Board regulation 101.81
(governing appeals from the Department) and 101.102 (governing appeals from
referee to the Board) 34 Pa.Code §§101.81 and 101.102, indicate only that a
party must set forth its “reasons for appeal,” without further elaboration as
to the detail required to satisfy this condition.
Further,
Board regulation 101.87, 34 Pa.Code §101.87, states, in part:
When an
appeal is taken from a decision of the Department [job center], the Department
[job center] shall be deemed to have ruled upon all matters and questions
pertaining to the claim. In hearing the appeals the tribunal [referee] shall
consider the issues expressly ruled upon the decision form which the appeal was
filed. However, any issue in the case may, with the approval of the parties, be
heard.
Board
regulation 101.107(b), 35 Pa.Code §101.107(b), provides in part:
The Board
shall consider the issues expressly ruled upon in the decision [of the referee]
from which the appeal was filed.
This Court has interpreted these
sections to mean that whatever issues the job center addressed, the referee should
likewise address, and the Board, in turn, should decide all of the issues the
referee considered, regardless of whether a party specifically raised the issue
on appeal to the Board. See Jordan v. UCBR, 547 A.2d 811 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
-----------------------------------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/
