Office of UC Benefits Policy v. UCBR –
January 7, 2016 – Cmwlth. Court – en banc.
Held: The claimant demonstrated “good cause” for
not complying with the statutory requirement that he register on-line for
employment search services within 30 days of applying for UC benefits,43 P.S.
sec. 801(b), 34 Pa. Code 65.11(c).
Good
cause for late registration
A
failure of a claimant to register timely in accordance with Section
401(b)(1)(i) of the Law is not a per se violation that automatically
disqualifies a claimant from unemployment compensation. Section 401(b)(6) of the Law provides that
“[t]he [D]epartment may waive or alter the requirements of this subsection in
cases or situations with respect to which the secretary finds that compliance
with such requirements would be oppressive or which would be inconsistent with the purposes of this act.”
43 P.S. §801(b)(6).
In
Sharpe v. UCBR (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 431 C.D. 2014, filed October 21, 2014), the
Court addressed the Department’s ability to waive the registration requirement.
We observed as follows: During the promulgation of the Department’s regulations
implementing Section 401(b), a commenter asked whether a “good cause” standard
should be incorporated into the regulations. 43 Pa. B. 4730, 4735 (2013). The
Department replied that in most cases where a “good cause” standard is applied,
it is because it is directed by statute and that it would not adopt one on its
own initiative. Id. However, the Department noted that, “if a claimant’s ‘good
cause’ for noncompliance with the regulation also constitutes a reason why
compliance ‘would be oppressive or ... inconsistent with the purposes of’ the
law, the claimant’s circumstances could be addressed under the waiver provision
in [S]ection 401(b)(6) of the [L]aw and [the regulation, 34 Pa. Code
§65.11(f)(6)].” In short, where a claimant can show “good
cause” for not registering on time, the Department may waive the time
requirement of Section 401(b)(1)(i) of the Law.
What
is “good cause” ?
The
Law does not define “good cause. ” The
Supreme Court has established that it “must be determined in each case from the
facts of that case.” Barclay White Co.
v. UCBR, 50 A.2d 336, 340 (Pa. 1947). In each case, “good cause” must be “so
interpreted that the fundamental purpose of the [Law] shall not be destroyed.” Id.
The central purpose of Section 401(b) of the Law is to require claimants to
make “an active search for suitable employment” while collecting benefits. 43 P.S. §801(b).
In
Sharpe, Commonweealth Court questioned the Board’s proposed use of the strict “nunc
pro tunc standard” that is used in deciding questions of jurisdiction. The Court suggested, and the Board has since
adopted, the more relaxed “good cause” standard. The Board notes here that not every claimant
can be expected to be “computer savvy” and that a single keystroke mistake can
fail to effect a registration. Further, registration cannot be done by letter
or by phone call.
The
Board rejects the argument of the Office of UC Benefits in favor of a strict
liability standard. The Board believes,
instead, that a case-by-case examination of “good cause” is appropriate and
consistent with the remedial and humanitarian objectives of the Law set out in Section 3, which
should not be frustrated “by slavish adherence to technical and artificial
rules.” Lehr v. UCBR, 625 A.2d 173, 175 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (quoting UCBR v. Jolliffe, 379 A.2d 109, 110 (Pa. 1977)). The Board explains that in on-line
registration waiver cases, “good cause” should be considered in the same way it
is used to mitigate willful misconduct. In that context, good cause has been
explained as follows: [W]e must evaluate both the reasonableness of the
employer’s request in light of all the circumstances, and the employee’s
reasons for noncompliance. The employee’s behavior cannot fall within “wilful
misconduct” if it was justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances, since
it cannot then be considered to be in wilful disregard of conduct the employer
“has a right to expect.” In other words, if there was “good cause” for the
employee’s action, it cannot be charged as wilful misconduct. The UC authorities and the court “must
evaluate both the reasonableness of the employer’s request in light of all the
circumstances, and the employee’s reasons for noncompliance.” McLean v. UCBR, 383 A.2d 533, 535 (Pa. 1978).
The
Board concluded that, here, using a reasonableness test, Claimant had good
cause for his action, or non-action, to wit.
The claimant testified without contradiction that he believed that he
had properly registered, since he got several communications from “Beyond.com,”
which he believed was affiliated with jobgateway.pa.gov. The evidence shows that “[p]lainly, Claimant
was not ducking registration. As soon as
he learned from the Referee that he was not registered, he responded. That very
day. Because Claimant was receiving job referrals, it is clear that he was complying
with the real purpose of Section 401(b), which is to ensure that a claimant
“[i]s making an active search for suitable employment.” 43 P.S. §801(b). We
agree with the Board’s case-by-case approach to evaluating whether a claimant
had good cause for failing to timely register for employment search services
under Section 401(b)(l)(i) of the Law, 43 P.S. §801(b)(l)(i). The Board
reviewed the facts and exercised its judgment to conclude that good cause
existed to waive the 30-day deadline for Claimant’s on-line registration. We
agree and affirm its adjudication.”
------------------------
This case is also reported in
the PLAN Legal Update http://planupdate.blogspot.com/
, which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
