Cairns v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court - 89-18-23 – unreported decision ***
While we are bound by the findings of the Board as the ultimate finder of fact, it is incumbent upon the Board to make findings of the underlying facts which are sufficiently definite and specific to enable this Court to pass upon the legal issues involved. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. v. Walton, 343 A.2d 70, 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975). The ambiguity in the findings of fact in this case matters, because a per diem substitute accepts the uncertainty of continued employment, while a long-term substitute does not. Whether Claimant was, in fact, a per diem substitute for the entirety of the previous academic year or, after her initial hire at that position, became a long-term substitute for the balance of the academic year, or went back and forth as in Carlynton, is of critical importance in determining whether the offer made represents, in the terms of the Board's regulation, a substantial reduction in "wages . . . and hours of work."
In light of the forgoing, we vacate the order of the Board and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion, the making of sufficiently definite findings of fact, and the entry of an order based upon those findings.
Editor’s note:
Administrative decisions must have adequate findings and reasons.
16) Findings and reasons - 2 Pa. C.S. § 507 - “All adjudications….shall contain findings and the reasons for the adjudication….”
a) Basic findings of fact are “essential to the validity” of an administrative decision. The findings must be “sufficiently specific to enable the reviewing court to adequately review the findings and decide questions of law. Begis, 398 A.2d 643. Accord, Page’s Dept. Store v. Velardi, 346 A.2d 556, 561 (Pa. 1975). “Failure to make the requisite findings is a violation of due process,” Begis; 2 Pa. C.S. §507.
b) Findings must be specific, not general and conclusory. Koggan v. UCBR, 472 A.2d 277 (Pa. Cmwlth 1984)
c) Findings must be complete. They must cover all issues “necessary to resolve the issues raised by the evidence which are relevant to the decision.” Koggan, Page’s Dept. Store.
d) The appellate court may not infer from the absence of a finding that a question was resolved in favor of the prevailing party before the agency. Koggan
e) Where findings are not adequate, the appellate court will usually remand the case, since it is not the court’s function to be a fact-finder.” Koggan, Page’s Dept. Store.
f) credibility findings – Held sufficient in UC cases if the UCBR simply says it chose to believe one side or the other. Peak v., UCBR, 501 A2d 1383, 1387 (Pa. 1985), 1387. Compare, Higgins v. WCAB, 854 A2d 1002, 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth 2004), where court held that a credibility determination was not adequate because the fact-finder failed to "issue a reasoned decision" and to "articulate some objective basis for [its] credibility determinations."
++++++++++++++++++
** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).
