Unemployment Compensation

Subscribe to Unemployment Compensation via RSS

Pennsylvania employers can achieve positive results and realize other important gains by wisely and effectively responding to, and when appropriate, contesting unemployment compensation claims. This post is Part 3 of a 3 part series on handling UC claims and addresses best practices for appealing to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review/Commonwealth Court, when to involve legal counsel, and mandatory electronic filings of UC quarterly reports.
Continue Reading Best Practices for Handling Unemployment Compensation Claims Part 3: Appeals, Legal Counsel, & Quarterly Reports

Pennsylvania employers can achieve positive results and realize other important gains by wisely and effectively responding to, and when appropriate, contesting unemployment compensation claims. This post is Part 1 of a 3 part series on handling UC claims and addresses best practices for responding to the initial UC claim.
Continue Reading Best Practices for Handling Unemployment Compensation Claims Part 1: Responding to the Initial UC Claim and Appealing the Initial Determination

In a recent decision, the Commonwealth Court considered a part-time employee’s eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits after she was fired for disregarding her employer’s prior directive to not work past the end of her shift after punching out–and upheld the award of benefits!
Continue Reading Employee Fired for Working Additional Hours Eligible for UC Benefits Despite Prior Warning

This case demonstrates not only that clear and effective employment policies can be crucial to supporting employment decisions, but also that preparing in advance for responding to claims and participating in administrative proceedings will afford employers the best opportunity to successfully challenge non-qualifying UC claims. The employer was successful in this case because it presented relevant witness testimony and policies at the hearing. Employers can control overall unemployment compensation costs, send the right message, and maintain the integrity of its workplace policies and standards of conduct by challenging UC claims when warranted and sufficiently preparing in advance when responding to claims and participating in UC proceedings.
Continue Reading Long-Term Employee Ineligible for UC Benefits for Violating Workplace Conduct Policies

A Pennsylvania man lost his job in September 2012 and is now without unemployment compensation. Why? He called his boss a “clown.”

On October 17, 2013, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the decision of an unemployment compensation Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying Alfonso Miller unemployment benefits.

Miller, a 5-year employee of a private Philadelphia-based organization providing comprehensive services to individuals with disabilities, had some choice words for his supervisor during his regularly scheduled performance evaluation. After calling his supervisor a “[expletive] clown” and referring to the entire evaluation process as a joke, Miller was fired from his job.
Continue Reading Calling Your Boss a Clown: No Laughing Matter

In the past year there has been a flurry of activity in the courts and the General Assembly surrounding the availability of unemployment compensation benefit to employees within the state. To start off 2012, amendments to the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (“Act 6” or “amendments”) took effect and imposed a requirement that claimants “mak[e] an active search for suitable employment” in order to be eligible for UC benefits. Prior to Act 6, Pennsylvania was the only state that did not require a UC claimant to search for work in order to qualify for benefits. Act 6 directed the state’s Department of Labor and Industry (“L&I”) to establish the specific search efforts necessary for a claimant to satisfy the active search requirements…
Continue Reading Pennsylvania Regulatory Review Panel Disapproves of L&I’s New UC Active Work Search Requirements

Historically, in determining whether an employee discharged for absenteeism and tardiness was eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, the court’s analysis had focused on the final incident that led to termination. Specifically, even where the employer could point to a pattern of excessive absenteeism as the cause for discharge, the employee was not disqualified from receiving benefits if the last absence was justified. Late last year, however, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued a decision that appears to undermines this “last in time” approach.
Continue Reading Employee’s History of Absenteeism Sufficient to Deny UC Benefits Even if Final Incident Justified

For years, Pennsylvania courts have consistently denied unemployment compensation benefits to employees who accept early retirement incentive packages. Recently, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overruled this well-established precedent. In Diehl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Supreme Court found that employees who accept early retirement packages offered pursuant to employer-initiated workforce reductions are eligible for…

Last month, Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett signed into law an unemployment compensation ("UC") reform bill. The law, considered by many to be largely pro-employer, is designed to restore solvency to the state’s unemployment compensation trust fund by 2019. Several of the major provisions of the UC reform law are outlined below.

  • The law authorizes the Commonwealth

…

In June 2011, the Pennsylvania General Assembly enacted a law amending the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law. Many of the amendments’ provisions took effect January 1, 2012, including additional “active search for employment” eligibility requirements for claimants to collect UC benefits.
…
In interpreting the active search requirement and statutory exceptions, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry established specific steps that a claimant must take to satisfy the active search requirement. L&I also added the caveat that, to be relieved from the active search requirement under the layoff/lack of work exception, the claimant must have a projected return to work date within 28 calendar days of when he last worked. The addition of the 28-day requirement caused significant concern for employers who engage in seasonal layoffs, particularly those in the construction industry.
Continue Reading Labor & Industry Revises New Active Search Requirements for UC Eligibility, Drops “28 Calendar Days” Recall Requirement for Temporary Layoff Exception