§ 101.111. Reconsideration by Board.
(a) Within 15 days after the issuance of the decision of the Board, as may be determined by the provisions of § 101.102 (relating to form and filing of application for further appeal from decision of referee), any aggrieved party may request the Board to reconsider its decision and if allowed, to grant further the opportunity to do the following:
(1) Offer additional evidence at another hearing.
(2) Submit written or oral argument.
(3) Request the Board to reconsider the previously established record of evidence.
(b) The requests will be granted only for good cause in the interest of justice without prejudice to any party. The parties will be notified of the ruling of the Board on each such request. The request for reconsideration and the ruling of the Board shall be made a part of the record and subject to review in connection with any further appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
Source The provisions of this § 101.111 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435; amended July 14, 1978, effective July 15, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 2002. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (32171).
Notes of Decisions Denial of Application
The Board’s denial of an application for rehearing was not an abuse of its discretion where there is no allegation that the additional evidence was not available at the time of the referee’s hearing and there is no explanation for a 9 month delay between discovery of the additional evidence and the rehearing request. Department of Auditor General v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 484 A.2d 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Denial of Reconsideration
The Board is acting properly in refusing to grant a request for reconsideration if the only evidence a claimant has to offer upon reconsideration is evidence which he has already offered in the referee’s hearing. Keiper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Failure to Petition
The validity of an employer’s no-solicitation rule, used as a basis for denying unemployment benefits to claimant for willful misconduct when he repeatedly violated the rule, was not subject to beingreconsidered on remand of the case, notwithstanding employer’s agreement to revoke the rule after completion of the case, when employer’s agreement remained outside the record due to claimant’s failure to petition for reconsideration of the board’s decision in light of this additional evidence. Stratigos v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 486 A.2d 557 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Good Cause
The Board’s grant of a request for reconsideration where legal theories or authorities were previously unconsidered constituted ‘‘good cause’’ and not an abuse of discretion, even absent a clear statement that its prior decision was erroneous. Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 630 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Where an employer requested and received a continuance of a hearing because no one with firsthand testimony was available, then failed to provide a witness with firsthand knowledge at the rescheduled hearing, the action of the Board in granting employer’s request for reconsideration to provide firsthand testimony was not taken for good cause as required by subsection (b). Bennett v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 470 A.2d 203 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Grant of Reconsideration
The Board must clearly set forth in the record the basis upon which it grants reconsideration of a decision; allegations unsubstantiated by any evidence of record cannot support a decision of the Board to reopen a case, particularly where the appellant has not been given the opportunity to refute such allegations. Grcich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 A.2d 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981); reversed and remanded 440 A.2d 681 (Pa. 1982).
Inadequate Record
Except in extraordinary circumstances, the court will not reverse or remand an agency decision on the ground of inadequacy if the record where means provided for the same relief from the agency are not utilized, especially where the court is not told what evidence should be included in the record but has not been. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 329 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).
Reconsideration
The employer’s failure to appear at a hearing held only 15 miles away in a town where the Bureau’s office was located is not grounds for reconsideration if the employer gives no reason for failing to appear. Flanagan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 407 A.2d 471 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review abused its discretion in granting the employer’s reconsideration petition, in which it alleged that the Board’s decision was based upon hearsay evidence, where any hearsay objection or question regarding credibility should have been made before it requested reconsideration from the Board. Ensle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 740 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).
Timeliness
A claimant’s failure to request reconsideration within fifteen days of the Board’s decision prior to filing an appeal of the Board’s decision with the court was not a failure to exhaust his administrative remedies where the claimant’s reasons for his failure to appear at the referee’s hearing were already in evidence at the time the Board rendered its decision. Eckert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 483 A.2d 1059 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
The Court will not determine whether an appeal notice is misleading where the notice is not part of the record before it and will not remand for a determination of whether the appeal notice was misleading since the claimant failed to submit a petition for reconsideration to the Board within the fifteen day period specified in this section raising that issue. Kustafik v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 462 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
A disappointed litigant before the Board may file a petition for rehearing or reconsideration with the effect that the limitation of time for appeal from the original adjudication, as well as the decision on the petition for rehearing, is measured from the entry of the latter decision, if such a petition is timely filed. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 329 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
