Subchapter B. PROVISIONS GOVERNING HEARINGS
BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OR REFEREE
HEARINGS Sec.
101.21. Conduct of hearings.
101.22. Consolidated hearings.
101.23. Continuance of hearing.
101.24. Reopening of hearing.
WITNESSES
101.31. Subpoenas.
101.32. Distance.
101.33. Expenses.
101.34. Failure to appear.
COUNSEL
101.41. Approval of counsel fees.
PROCEDURE
101.51. Absence of party.
101.52. Investigations.
101.53. Notice.
101.54. Records.
101.55. Withdrawal or discontinuance of appeal.
DISMISSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION
101.61. Dismissal if filing of appeal or application for further appeal is late.
101.62. Disqualification to participate in hearing or decision.
COPIES OF TESTIMONY
101.71. Copies on request.
Cross References This subchapter cited in 34 Pa. Code § 101.131 (relating to conduct of a telephone hearing).
HEARINGS
§ 101.21. Conduct of hearings.
(a) In a hearing the tribunal may examine the parties and their witnesses. Where a party is not represented by counsel the tribunal before whom the hearing is being held should advise him as to his rights, aid him in examining and cross-examining witnesses, and give him every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of its official duties.
(b) The tribunal shall determine the order in which the evidence shall be presented in hearings. Within the discretion of the tribunal, the parties shall be permitted to present evidence and testimony which they believe is necessary to establish their rights.
(c) Hearings under this part shall be open to the public, subject to the availability of suitable and reasonable facilities. However, the tribunal conducting a hearing may close the hearing as to other than interested parties to the extent necessary to protect the interests and rights of the claimant or employer to a fair hearing.
Source The provisions of this § 101.21 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Due Process
The action of a referee in taking evidence from an employer and then concluding the hearing while the claimant and claimant’s counsel wait in a hallway just outside does not meet due process standards. Collins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 415 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
Neither considerations of due process nor this section require the referee to assist claimants in a manner incompatible with the impartial discharge of the referee’s duties; failure of the referee to advise a party on right to counsel, nature of proceeding, burden of proof, and applicable law does not constitute a violation of due process or the provision of this section. Horvath v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 403 A.2d 1073 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
While a referee may not improperly refuse to accept relevant, competent and material evidence, no deprivation of claimant’s due process rights is shown if counsel for claimant is permitted to question opposition witnesses, does not object to the conclusion of the hearing, does not request that counsel’s witnesses be permitted to testify, does not offer to produce additional probative evidence, and does not request a further hearing. Healey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 387 A.2d 1025 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
Evidence
The referee’s failure to advise a claimant as to the hearsay nature of certain evidence introduced into the record without objection does not constitute a breach of the referee’s duty under this section. A referee is not required to advise a claimant on specific evidentiary questions or points of law. Rohrbach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 323 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
The admission of hearsay evidence by a referee is prejudicial to a claimant under this section and is cause for remand. Wise v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 314 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
When the claimant testified that the evidence was submitted to the Board by letter and that claimant had no additional testimony to present and the letter was not in the record nor was it considered by the referee acting as hearing officer, or by the Board, the claimant did not receive a full and fair determination of his appeal. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Hoffer, 360 A.2d 796 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).
In a proceeding before a referee for the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the spirit of this section is violated where there is a communications gap between the claimant and the referee, concerning consideration of evidence; such violation deprives the claimant of a full and fair determination of an appeal. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Hoffer, 360 A.2d 796 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).
General Comments
Subsection (a) does not require the referee to advise a party on evidentiary questions or on specific points of law. Simpson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 395 A.2d 309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
Record
Where an unrepresented claimant submitted a psychological report to the service center, the referee did not provide every assistance in an impartial manner by offering several service center documents for admission into the record, but not the claimant’s psychological report. Lewis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 814 A.2d 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Record of Proceedings
Not only is the referee required, at the minimum, to advise a claimant unrepresented by counsel of the right to have an attorney, to offer witnesses and to cross-examine adverse witnesses, but said advice should appear in the record to enable a full review of an appeal grounded on an alleged failure by the referee to afford the claimant due process. Glammer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 449 A.2d 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Representation
Where the petitioner refused to waive the right to legal representation after making a bona fide attempt to have counsel at the hearing, and where the petitioner apparently was without fault or complicity in counsel’s failure to appear, the petitioner was prejudiced by the referee’s decision to proceed and was entitled to a remand. Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 484 A.2d 831 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Testimony
Witnesses
Where claimant’s attorney elected not to have witnesses testify after the referee had questioned the relevance of the testimony, no refusal to permit testimony in contravention of claimant’s due process rights has been established. Wilkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 502 A.2d 283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
A referee’s failure to notify a claimant that the Board could take steps to have a subpoena enforced when claimant’s witness failed to appear was harmless error where the witness’ testimony, had it been given and had it confirmed all that the claimant had alleged, would only have been cumulative. Ehmann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 483 A.2d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Unrepresented Claimants
‘‘Another component of a referee’s reasonable compliance with the regulatory obligation to assist unrepresented parties is guiding the parties to bring out facts of which the referee knows or should know.’’ Hackler v. UCBR, 24 A.3d 1112, 1116 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
The regulation obligates a referee to inform an unrepresented claimant of his rights, to aid claimants in the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and to give claimants assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of its official duties. The referee’s conduct falls short of this standard when referee chastised the claimant for not reading (and remembering) the terms of Non Competition Agreement, quarreled with claimant’s description of the Agreement, and sua sponte, objected to claimant’s attempted testimony about employer’s treatment of other employees allowed to work in spite of having agreed to a non-compete agreement on grounds of hearsay. Zimmerman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 836 A.2d 1074 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
The claimant was provided with written notice of the hearing, which included notice of his rights. The claimant was also advised of his rights by the referee, and was afforded the opportunity to be heard throughout the trial. The referee, however, is not required to assume the role of the claimant’s advocate. Therefore, the record reflects that the hearing was fair and impartial, and the claimant was afforded due process. McFadden v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).
The referee has a responsibility to assist a pro se claimant at a hearing so that the facts of the case necessary for a decision may be adequately developed. The referee failed to inform claimant that claimant could have requested a continuance of the hearing in order to secure and present testimony from employer. This evidence would have aided in the development of necessary factual determinations. Coates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
By virtue of this regulation, a claimant appearing at the referee’s hearing without counsel is entitled to assistance from the referee in the development of the claimant’s case and advice as to claimant’s basic rights. Jennings v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 675 A.2d 810 (1996).
Evidence that the referee assisted an uncounseled claimant as required under this section is sufficient to prove that claimant’s right to present evidence and cross-examine adverse witnesses was in no way compromised. Reed v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 522 A.2d 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
To comply with subsection (a), an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review referee must advise an uncounseled claimant of the claimant’s due process rights to be represented by counsel, to cross examine adverse witnesses, and to offer witnesses in the claimant’s own behalf. The referee must render every assistance compatible with impartial discharge of the referee’s duties; however, the referee is not required to become, and should not assume, the role of claimant’s advocate. Brennan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 A.2d 73 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Where the referee failed to advise a pro se claimant of rights and to ask important questions concerning the reasons for claimant’s termination of employment, the referee violated subsection (a) (responsibilities of the tribunal to a pro se party) and the case was remanded. Tate v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 477 A.2d 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
A claimant who elects to proceed without legal representation, and who receives all the assistance from the tribunal due under subsection (a), cannot be heard to complain on appeal that case might have been presented more effectively or with greater credibility with the assistance of counsel. Rodgers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 476 A.2d 1014 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Where, in violation of subsection (a), a referee has failed to advise an uncounseled claimant of the right to present and subpoena witnesses, the court will order a remand unless it can be shown that the referee’s omissions were not prejudicial to the claimant or did not materially affect claimant’s rights. Finley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 A.2d 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
While a claimant appearing at the referee’s hearing without counsel is entitled under subsection (a) to assistance from the referee in the development of a case and advise as to claimant’s basic rights, claimant need not be shown any greater deference than would be afforded a claimant with an attorney. Groch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 472 A.2d 286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Where a referee asked an unrepresented claimant if claimant wished to ask questions of the employer at the conclusion of employer’s testimony and also explained claimant’s right to subpoena the testimony of the writers of certain letters which had been excluded as hearsay, the referee had complied with subsection (a). Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 471 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
No remand was granted for an alleged violation of subsection (a) where the record indicated that the referee advised the claimant of the right to have an attorney represent claimant at the hearing, to present witnesses in his behalf and to cross-examine those witnesses presented against claimant. The referee was, also, not remiss in taking a more active role in the development of the claimant’s case. Barksdale v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 469 A.2d 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
A referee discharged the obligations under subsection (a) by informing the claimant of the right to counsel, the right to offer witnesses and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. The referee does not fail in the discharge of those obligations because of a failure to ask if claimant understands these rights. Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
The referee did not fail to perform the duties under subsection (a) merely because the referee neglected to define ‘‘able and available’’ and ‘‘work’’ prior to asking claimant whether she was able and available to accept work. Ellison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 431 A.2d 1094 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Fairness and the provisions of subsection (a) require an Unemployment Compensation Appeals Board referee to advise an uncounseled claimant of the right to be represented by counsel, offer witnesses and cross examine adverse witnesses in an unemployment compensation evidentiary hearing. Katz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 A.2d 354 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Conduct of a hearing was insufficient in light of this section when the referee failed to advise an uncounseled claimant of rights, gave claimant no meaningful opportunity to challenge hearsay documents upon which the employer’s case was based or to cross-examine declarants, made no effort to solicit the claimant’s views in an orderly manner designed to test the credibility of the employer’s evidence, attempted to dismiss the claimant after the conclusion of the employer’s submissions without questions or further proceedings, responded to the claimant’s requests to speak in a manner designed to abbreviate the claimant’s reply, and made no effort to clarify the claimant’s challenge to the employer’s evidence, but rather cross-examined claimant apparently for purposes of reinforcing the employer’s case. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ceja, 427 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1981).
The referee did not fail to assist a claimant under subsection (a) in developing evidence since, although the referee did interrupt the claimant at one point to ask a question, the claimant was later asked twice by the referee whether claimant had any further testimony and the claimant was allowed to respond. Russell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 402 A.2d 1149 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
—Remand Appropriate
A referee’s failure to advise an unrepresented claimant of right to secure counsel, to cross-examine adverse witnesses, and to offer witnesses, as required by subsection (a) requires a remand for a new hearing. Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 465 A.2d 111 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Claimant was prejudiced by the referee’s failure to advise the claimant, under subsection (a), of claimant’s rights to be represented by an attorney, present witnesses, and cross-examine adverse witnesses. Allrutz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 463 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
The referee is required by subsection (a) to advise the claimant of her right to have counsel and to cross-examine adverse witnesses. Failure to do so was prejudicial error where the claimant, lacking counsel at the hearing, could have been disabled from establishing the truth of an alleged misunderstanding with the employer. Mayberry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 457 A.2d 182 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
The improper exclusion of medical certification from evidence implies that the claimant was not given the assistance or advice required by subsection (a), and, where the Board concedes that the claimant did not receive a fair and impartial hearing, there is cause for remand. Demmy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
A referee’s failure to instruct a claimant that the claimant had the right to cross-examine the employer’s witnesses, coupled with a failure to afford the claimant the opportunity to do so, was prejudicial and is cause for remand. Linke v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 450 A.2d 312 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
If an unemployment compensation hearing referee fails to advise a claimant unrepresented by counsel of the claimant’s rights, to aid claimant in examining or cross-examining witnesses, and to give every assistance compatible with the impartial discharge of the referee’s duties, the case will be remanded to the Board for further action. Stine v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 448 A.2d 117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Failure of the referee to inform the petitioner of the right to have counsel, to present witnesses in his own behalf, and to cross-examine adverse witnesses was cause for remand in the absence of evidence from the record that petitioner waived the right to be advised or that petitioner’s rights were not materially affected. Bender v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Since neither claimant was represented by counsel at separate hearings before the referee, and at each hearing the referee failed to advise the claimants of their procedural rights, the cases must be remanded. Lauer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 445 A.2d 1353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
Since the claimant was not represented by counsel at the hearing before the referee, and the referee failed to advise claimant, as an uncounseled claimant, of claimant’s procedural rights, the case must be remanded. Hughes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 445 A.2d 1352 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
When the referee at an unemployment compensation hearing, in addition to not informing a pro se claimant of the right to counsel, to cross-examine, and to offer witnesses on claimant’s behalf, did not ask claimant questions sufficient to enable claimant to emphasize the factual aspects of claimant’s contentions which might have aided claimant in establishing a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntary termination of her employment which would, if proven, allow claimant to receive benefits, the interests of fairness as contemplated by subsection (a) require a reversal of the referee’s decision, and remand for a new hearing. Bennett v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 445 A.2d 258 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
The failure of the referee to advise an uncounselled claimant of the right to have an attorney, to offer witnesses and to cross examine adverse witnesses in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a) required the court to remand to the Board for a new evidentiary hearing at which the claimant, if uncounselled, shall be advised of such rights. Hoffman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 430 A.2d 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
The Board did not err in denying a remand to an unrepresented claimant to present additional evidence. The claimant’s failure to present the evidence at the initial hearing, because she was unrepresented and not advised that she could present such evidence, did not constitute good cause for a remand. The Referee and the Board’s appraisal of the claimant’s rights to counsel, present evidence and testimony, and to present and cross-examine witnesses was sufficient to satisfy due process. Beddis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 1053 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Cross References This section cited in 34 Pa. Code § 101.86 (relating to appeal hearings).
§ 101.22. Consolidated hearings.
When the same or substantially similar evidence is relevant and material to the matters at issue in the petition for appeal concerning claims filed by more than one individual or, in multiple appeals, filed by single individuals or their authorized representatives, the same time and place for considering each appeal and claim may be fixed; hearings thereon jointly conducted; a single record of the proceedings made; and evidence introduced with respect to an appeal or claim considered as introduced with respect to appeals or claims if, in the judgment of the Board or referee having jurisdiction of the proceeding, such consideration will not be prejudicial to any party.
Source The provisions of this § 101.22 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Consolidated Decision
A decision to use consolidated hearings under this section does not give the Board license to ignore the notice requirements contained in 34 Pa. Code § 101.85. Allrutz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 463 A.2d 100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Test Case
Although the consolidation of claims for the purpose of adducing evidence was proper when separate treatment would result in duplication of testimony, it is inappropriate to use one case as a ‘‘test case’’ if the factual situation of that case is different from other cases which will be prejudiced by the decision. Woodhouse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 404 A.2d 783 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
§ 101.23. Continuance of hearing.
(a) Continuance of a hearing will be granted only for proper cause and upon the terms as the tribunal may consider proper. The inability of a party to attend a hearing because he received less than 7 days notice will be considered proper cause for continuance of a hearing.
(b) Within the discretion of the tribunal, a continuance will not, however, be granted merely because of the absence of a witness, unless it appears that the testimony and evidence he could give would be competent and relevant to the issues involved and that the information is essential to a proper determination of the case.
Source The provisions of this § 101.22 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Abuse of Discretion
Appellate court will not override a referee’s denial of a continuance in unemployment compensation case unless there is an abuse of discretion Skowronek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 555, 558-559 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).
The failure to grant a continuance based on counsel’s last-minute requests and vague reasons for the need for a continuance did not constitute an abuse of discretion since the claimant is required to make a timely request in a manner consistent with reasonable procedural rules. Liebel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 570, 558 A.2d 579 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Petitioners’ request for a continuance due to his incarceration was valid and the referee’s refusal to continue the case and entry of a decision against the claimant violated his due process rights and was an abuse of discretion. Thomas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 A.2d 600 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
Referee did not abuse his discretion in refusing to grant a continuance since claimant failed to make the required showing that the testimony of an absent witness would be competent, relevant and essential to a proper determination of the case. Viglino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 450 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where the hearing record showed that, at the time of the hearing, claimant’s attorney was enroute to the hearing and would arrive in less than an hour, and that delaying the hearing would not have prejudiced the employer in any manner, the court held that the referee abused her discretion by refusing to grant a continuance. Conrad v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 478 A.2d 930 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
A referee did not abuse his discretion to deny a request for a continuance under this section, where the party requesting the continuance ignored notice to produce first hand evidence of employe’s misconduct at the hearing. Bethlehem Mines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
A referee did not abuse the discretion afforded him under 34 Pa. Code § 101.23(b) by denying a continuance where the requesting claimant’s counsel requested the continuance because a witness could not attend, but counsel failed to make the necessary showing that the witness’ testimony would be competent, relevant, and essential to a proper determination of the case, having failed to even name the missing witness. Steadwell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 463 A.2d 1298 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Continuance
A referee’s decision to refuse a request for a continuance under this section is not a proper subject of review without a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Bethlehem Mines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Due Process
Where claimant was present at hearing and testified, a co-worker testified on claimant’s behalf and notarized statements from three co-workers were submitted, claimant had opportunity to be heard and referee’s refusal to grant a continuance did not amount to a denial of due process. Viglino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 450 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Essential Information
Where ‘‘voluntary quit’’ claimant had 7 days notice of hearing (including Labor Day Weekend), where husband’s testimony was necessary to determine whether his relocation was due to circumstances beyond his control, and where husband was away on business on hearing date, referee abused his discretion in refusing to grant continuance to permit husband to appear. Flatley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 500 A.2d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
Sua Sponte
The claimant should have been advised of his right to a continuance or the referee should have declared a continuance sua sponte in order to make arrangements with the phone company to have a four-party conference call to allow claimant’s witnesses to testify. Eddy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 533 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where the technology did not exist to arrange a four-party conference call to include claimant’s union representative, the referee should have advised the claimant of his right to request a continuance or sua sponte declared one in order to make arrangements for a four-way call. Eddy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 533 A.2d 191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Waiver
Where claimant failed to object to continuance before referee and did not raise matter before Unemployment Compensation Board, issue cannot properly be raised before court. Fleeger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 528 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
§ 101.24. Reopening of hearing.
(a) If a party who did not attend a scheduled hearing subsequently gives written notice, which is received by the tribunal prior to the release of a decision, and it is determined by the tribunal that his failure to attend the hearing was for reasons which constitute ‘‘proper cause,’’ the case shall be reopened. Requests for reopening, whether made to the referee or Board, shall be in writing; shall give the reasons believed to constitute ‘‘proper cause’’ for not appearing; and they shall be delivered or mailed—preferably to the tribunal at the address shown on the notice of hearing or to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Labor and Industry Building, Seventh and Forster Streets, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17121, or to the local employment office where the appeal was filed.
(b) A request for reopening which is received by the referee before his decision has been issued to the parties shall be decided by the referee before whom the case is pending. If the request for reopening is allowed, a new hearing shall be scheduled with written notice thereof to each of the parties. At a reopened hearing, the opposing party shall be given the opportunity to object to the reopening if he so desires. If the request for reopening is denied, the referee shall append to the record the request, supporting material and the ruling on the request, so that it shall be subject to review on further appeal.
(c) A request for reopening the hearing which is not received before the decision was issued, but is received or postmarked on or before the 21st day after the decision of the referee was issued to the parties, shall constitute a request for further appeal to the Board and a reopening of the hearing, and the Board will rule upon the request. If the request for reopening is allowed, the case will be remanded and a new hearing scheduled, with written notice thereof to each of the parties. At a reopened hearing, the opposing party shall be given the opportunity to object to the reopening if he so desires. If the request to have the hearing reopened is denied, the Board will append to the record the request, supporting material and the ruling on the request, so that it shall be subject to review in connection with any further appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
(d) If a request for reopening is not received before the decision was issued but is received or postmarked within 15 days after the decision of the Board was issued to the parties, it will be accepted as a request for reconsideration and a reopening of the hearing and the Board will rule upon the request. If the request for reopening is allowed, the Board will vacate its decision and remand the case for further hearing, with written notice thereof to each of the parties. At a reopened hearing, the opposing party shall be given the opportunity to object to the reopening if he so desires. If the request to have the hearing reopened is denied, the Board will append to the record the request, supporting material, and the ruling on the request, so that it shall be subject to review in connection with any further appeal to the Commonwealth Court.
Authority The provisions of this § 101.24 amended under section 203(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P.S. § 763(d)) and section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 186).
Source The provisions of this § 101.24 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435; amended July 14, 1978, effective July 15, 1978, 8 Pa.B. 2002; amended March 11, 2022, effective March 12, 2022, 52 Pa.B. 1480. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (330008) and (259525).
Notes of Decisions
Additional Hearings Inappropriate
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review appropriately granted an additional hearing while still requiring additional testimony and evidence on the employer’s claim that it did not receive notice. Verdecchia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s affirmance of referee’s decision to dismiss due to claimant’s failure to appear for hearing was improper where claimant made timely request for reopening the hearing and Board’s order failed to indicate its conclusion in writing along with the reasons for that conclusion and failed to append its ruling to the record as required by this section. Cannady v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
In upholding the discharge of an employe for willful misconduct, the Court noted that this regulation did not require the referee to reopen a hearing for a party who was absent from the original hearing where that party did not present in writing good cause for his or her absence from the hearing. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 458 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
There was no reason to require re-opening because of the absence of the employer from the referee’s hearing, since the referee had evidence which could support the position of the employer, the employe had the burden of proving the case and the employe did not object at the hearing to the absence of the employer. Shriner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 400 A.2d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
General Comment
These regulations govern requests for an additional hearing by a party who did not attend a scheduled hearing. Verdecchia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Proper Cause
Employer’s inconsistent explanations for failure to appear at scheduled hearing did not rise to level of ‘‘proper cause’’ required by this section, and the Board should not have remanded the case for a second hearing. Sanders v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 524 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Where written application for reopening of a hearing was made to the Board and there is no evidence that the referee or the Board appended to the record the request, any supporting material, and the ruling on the request, a dismissal of the claimant’s appeal will be reversed and the record remanded for a determination of ‘‘proper cause’’ for claimant’s failure to attend the referee’s hearing. Ortiz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 481 A.2d 1383, 1385 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Regulation Inapplicable
Referee did not reopen hearing under this section, where the referee agreed to continue hearing in order to receive employer’s testimony. Fleeger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 528 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Cross References This section cited in 34 Pa. Code § 101.104 (relating to allowance or disallowance of appeal).
WITNESSES
§ 101.31. Subpoenas.
The issuance of subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, memoranda and other records and documents, may be obtained on application to the Board, referee, or at any local employment office. In no case may a subpoena be issued to require the appearance of a witness before the tribunal unless his residence is within 100 miles of the place fixed for his appearance.
Source The provisions of this § 101.31 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Discretion
Although a referee must issue a requested subpoena if it ‘‘would lead to relevant and probative testimony,’’ the referee may deny the request if ‘‘the subpoena is being requested for purposes of harassment or to commence a fishing expedition.’’ York v. UCBR, 56 A.3d 26, 31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
The issuance of a subpoena is a matter of discretion; thus, a claimant’s assertion that issuance was mandatory was without merit. Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
The holding of Zukoski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), placing discretion in the Board regarding the issuance of subpoenas, does not relieve the Board of its obligation to issue subpoenas in cases where the issuance of the subpoena would lead to relevant and probative testimony. Hamilton v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 535 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Subpoena Sua Sponte
Absent a timely application by a proper party to the controversy, the referee does not have a duty to subpoena witnesses sua sponte. Farmland Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 478 A.2d 524 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
§ 101.32. Distance.
When the testimony of a witness whose residence is more than 100 miles from the place of hearing is deemed necessary, the referee before whom the hearing is being held may submit to the referee whom the witness can more conveniently appear, questions propounded by the parties to the appeal proceeding for the purpose of receiving the testimony of that witness. The referee to whom such questions are referred shall schedule a hearing and, if necessary, subpoena before him the witness by whom the questions are to be answered.
Source The provisions of this § 101.32 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
§ 101.33. Expenses.
(a) A witness required by subpoena to attend a hearing before the tribunal shall be allowed witness fees and mileage at the rate fixed by the Department. The fees and mileage shall be approved by the tribunal before whom the witness was required to appear.
(b) In the hearing of each case, the tribunal shall list the names and addresses of witnesses who appeared at the hearing, together with the witness fee and the mileage allowed each witness. In each case the fees and expenses for witnesses properly subpoenaed shall be included as part of the expense of the appeal proceeding under section 506 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § 825).
Source The provisions of this § 101.33 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
§ 101.34. Failure to appear.
(a) When a person refuses, fails or neglects to comply with a subpoena issued under the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § 826), or refuses, fails or neglects to produce books, papers, correspondence, memoranda or other records and documents, a party to the appeal proceedings may request the Board to petition a Court of Common Pleas having jurisdiction to require the person subpoenaed to appear and give testimony and to produce the books, papers, correspondence, memoranda or other records and documents described in the subpoena.
(b) The request to the Board shall be in writing and shall set forth the facts as to the issuance and service of the subpoena, including a description of the books, papers, correspondence, memoranda or other records and documents as contained in the subpoena, and a statement as to the residence and present whereabouts of the person subpoenaed. The Board will give notice by mail to the person alleged to have refused, failed or neglected to comply with the subpoena, and unless, within 5 days after the mailing of the notice, he shows cause why he did not comply, the Board may proceed to compel such compliance as provided in this part.
Source The provisions of this § 101.34 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Evidence—Cumulative
It was harmless error to fail to inform the petitioner of the right to request the Board to petition the Court of Common Pleas to require the appearance of a person subpoenaed because the documentation and testimony which would have been provided would have been merely cumulative evidence and in support of issues not in dispute. Beamer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 552 A.2d 774 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
A referee’s failure to notify a claimant that the Board could take steps to have a subpoena enforced when claimant’s witness failed to appear was harmless error where the witness’ testimony, had it been given and had it confirmed all that the claimant had alleged, would only have been cumulative. Ehmann v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 483 A.2d 587 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Notice
Since the Board is required to give notice and opportunity to be heard to a noncomplying person when it is attempting to enforce a subpoena, the same notice must be given when the Board is acting through an agent. Guida v. Wentzel, 11 Pa. D. & C.3d 564 (1979).
COUNSEL
§ 101.41. Approval of counsel fees.
(a) Under section 702 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § 862), an individual claiming compensation in a proceeding before the Board or referee, may be represented by counsel or other authorized agent. Ordinarily, the amount of the fee for the service may be agreed upon between the claimant and counsel or authorized agent. However, if an issue is raised as to the amount of the fee, a petition or other written communication may be filed with the Board setting forth in detail the nature and extent of the services rendered to the claimant, the amount of benefits to which the claimant was potentially entitled at the beginning of the current benefit year, and the amount of compensation obtained by the claimant.
(b) In connection with the consideration of a petition or other written communication that raises an issue as to the amount of the fee for services rendered, the Board will apply the rule that the fee charged or received for the service may not exceed 5% of the amount of benefits to which the claimant was potentially entitled at the beginning of his current benefit year, except that in mass or token appeal proceedings involving multiclaimants, if an issue is raised as to the amount of the fee, the Board reserves within its discretion the right to determine the amount of the fee to be approved, which will depend upon the circumstances prevailing with regard to the particular proceeding.
(c) The Board will make an order upon a petition or other written communication without a hearing. Notice of an order will be served upon both the claimant and counsel or authorized agent. The order will become final 10 days after the mailing of the notice thereof, unless objections to the order are filed. Objections to the order will be disposed of and decided in such manner as the Board may prescribe.
Source The provisions of this § 101.41 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Board Approval
The Unemployment Compensation Board did not need to approve counsel fees where there was no issue raised as to the amount of the fees earned by an attorney. Department of Public Welfare v. Ziegler, 542 A.2d 226 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
Representation Before the Board
Individuals claiming unemployment compensation may be represented by counsel or other duly authorized agent in proceedings before the Unemployment Compensation Board; corporations, however, must be represented by legal counsel. Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 867 A.2d 728, 732 N.6 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).
PROCEDURE
§ 101.51. Absence of party.
If a party notified of the date, hour and place of a hearing fails to attend a hearing without proper cause, the hearing may be held in his absence. In the absence of all parties, the decision may be based upon the pertinent available records. The tribunal may take such other action as may be deemed appropriate.
Source The provisions of this § 101.51 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Issuance of Subpoenas and Nonappearance
Claimants failed to make the requisite offer of proof establishing entitlement to the initial issuance of subpoenas. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the referee erred in denying these subpoenas originally, any error was cured by subsequent issuance of the subpoenas. Because none of the claimants appeared at the second hearing, to avail themselves of this second opportunity to be heard, they cannot legitimately claim to have been prejudiced by a lack of due process. Finally, a proper cause inquiry for nonappearance does not impermissibly reallocate the burden of proof in a willful misconduct setting. Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Pertinent Available Records
As both the unemployment compensation claimant and employer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing before the referee, the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review could either decide the case based on the ‘‘pertinent available records’’ or reschedule the hearing. Clairton Municipal Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 639 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
Proper Cause
Claimant’s negligent misreading of hearing date on notice of hearing was not ‘‘proper cause’’ under this section which would invalidate Board decision based on evidence presented at a hearing held, in claimant’s absence. Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
The dismissal, based upon the claimant’s failure to appear, of an appeal from a finding of noneligibility for benefits based upon the self-employment of the claimant, was reversed when the Board failed to determine if there was proper cause for claimant’s absence as required by this section. Eckert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 483 A.2d 1059 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Referee’s Decision
Where the claimant fails to attend the referee’s hearing without ‘‘proper cause’’, the referee must issue a decision on the merits with findings of fact based upon the evidence of record, including any testimony that the employer may wish to offer in support of its burden of proof. Ortiz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 481 A.2d 1383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § 822), when read together with this section, reveals the legislation’s intention that referees decide unemployment cases on their merits, even in the absence of a party or indeed both parties. Gadsden v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
Where the employer was notified of the date, hour and place of the hearing, and the referee waited for the employer to appear, it was not erroneous for the referee to conduct the hearing in the employer’s absence. Torsky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
In upholding the discharge of an employe for willful misconduct, the Court noted that 34 Pa. Code § 101.51 allows the referee to hold a hearing without one party or all parties if they have all been duly notified. Lee v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 458 A.2d 629 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Waiver of Opportunities
Because claimant has neglected to establish proper cause for nonappearance, he waived his opportunity to request a continuance or telephonic conference, waiting until the day of trial to assert unavailability, and failed to address the exact nature and probative worth of his testimony from another proceeding, neither the referee nor the Board erred in refusing to admit claimant’s PLRB testimony. Flores v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
§ 101.52. Investigations.
(a) Where, in the determination of an appeal, the report of an investigation is to be used adversely to the interests of any party, the report, if objected to, may not be introduced as evidence and considered in the disposition of the appeal unless a continued hearing has been held at which the persons who furnished the information contained in the report appeared and the party adversely affected was afforded an opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal. If the person who furnished the information appears but the party adversely affected fails to appear, the latter shall be deemed to have been afforded a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination and rebuttal.
(b) The tribunal may continue the hearing of an appeal and make an investigation either in person or through an investigator or other designated person when the hearing has failed to produce sufficient evidence to establish adequate findings as to the material facts or where there is reason to doubt the reliability of the evidence submitted, and when efforts to compel the attendance of the party or witness whose evidence is desired have failed. Information obtained in this manner shall be introduced into the record of evidence only under the same conditions (applicable to other investigations) as prescribed in subsection (a).
Source The provisions of this § 101.52 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Pertinent Available Records
As both the unemployment compensation claimant and employer failed to appear for a scheduled hearing before the referee, the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review could either decide the case based on the ‘‘pertinent available records’’ or reschedule the hearing. Clairton Municipal Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 639 A.2d 921 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
§ 101.53. Notice.
Mailing of notices, orders or decisions of a referee, or of the Board to the parties at their last known addresses, or issuance by electronic transmission when permitted by law and this chapter, as furnished by the parties to the referee, the Board or the Department, shall constitute notice of the matters therein contained.
Authority The provisions of this § 101.53 amended under section 203(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P.S. § 763(d)) and section 506 of The Administrative Code of 1929 (71 P.S. § 186).
Source The provisions of this § 101.53 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435; amended March 11, 2022, effective March 12, 2022, 52 Pa.B. 1480. Immediately preceding text appears at serial page (229286).
Notes of Decisions Last Known Address
Where the claimant informed OES at some point of her mistake and furnished them with the correct address, the court reversed the referee’s action of dismissal and remanded the record to the Board of Review for a hearing on the matter of whether the notice of the referee’s hearing was mailed to the claimants’ last known address. Gadsden v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 A.2d 74 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
§ 101.54. Records.
(a) The proceedings of appeal hearings, at both referee and Board levels shall be recorded and preserved for a period of 2 years. The record need not be transcribed unless a further appeal is filed. In the event an application for further appeal is filed from the decision of a referee, the record shall be transcribed and transmitted to the Board, together with records and documents in the appeal proceeding. At any time the Board may require the complete record of a case, or a part thereof, to be transcribed and filed with the Board.
(b) When an interested party or his representative requests information from the file of the Board in order to present and maintain the issues at a hearing before a referee or the Board, or in an appeal to the Court, such information (including the hearing transcript, where the record has been transcribed) shall be made available at a reasonable time to the party and his representative, without charge, at the office of the referee to whom the case was assigned or at the central office of the Board in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, whichever is more convenient to the interested party or his representative, for examination, copying and making notations therefrom. An examination of the file shall be permitted only for purposes relating to the Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § § 751—882) and for no other proceeding or purpose.
Source The provisions of this § 101.54 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Due Process
The failure of the Board to furnish a transcript of the hearing of the referee when requested is a violation of due process and deprives a claimant of the statutory right to file a brief prior to adjudication. Moyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 388 A.2d 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
Grounds for Reversal
Except in extraordinary circumstances, asserted inadequacy of the record is not grounds for reversal of an administrative agency’s decision. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 329 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974).
§ 101.55. Withdrawal or discontinuance of appeal.
A party who has filed an appeal may withdraw and discontinue it with the approval of the tribunal before whom the appeal is pending. Forms for withdrawal of appeal may be obtained from the office of the Board, a referee or a local employment office.
Source The provisions of this § 101.55 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
DISMISSAL AND DISQUALIFICATION
§ 101.61. Dismissal if filing of appeal or application for further appeal is late.
(a) If an appeal from a decision of the Department or an application for further appeal appears to have been filed beyond the applicable time limit, the tribunal shall advise the appealing party in writing that it appears not to have a jurisdiction because of the late filing, and that the appeal or application for further appeal will be dismissed without a hearing unless the appealing party notifies the tribunal in writing within the succeeding 15 days from the date of such notice, that he contends the appeal or application for further appeal was timely filed and that he desires a hearing. If no reply from the appealing party is received within the 15-day period, or if the appealing party does not request a hearing, the tribunal shall dismiss the appeal or application for further appeal.
(b) If an appeal has been filed from a decision of the Department, which appears to have been filed beyond the applicable time limit, and a request for a hearing is received within the 15-day period, the case shall be assigned to a referee for hearing on the issue of the timeliness of the appeal, and on the merits, if it appears that the appeal was in fact timely filed. Notice of the hearing will be mailed to the last known post office address of each interested party. If the referee finds that the appeal was not timely filed, he shall issue a decision only on this issue. If the referee finds that the appeal was timely filed, he shall issue a decision not only on the issue of the timeliness of the appeal, but also on the merits of the case.
(c) If an application for further appeal has been filed, which appears has been filed beyond the applicable time limit, and a request for a hearing is received by the Board within such 15-day period, the case shall be assigned to a referee to conduct a hearing for and on behalf of the Board on the issue of the timeliness of the application for further appeal, and on the merits, if it appears that the appeal was in fact timely filed. Notice of the hearing shall be mailed to the last known post office address of each interested party. If the Board finds that the application for further appeal was not timely filed, the Board will issue a decision only on this issue. If the Board finds that the application for further appeal was timely filed, the Board will proceed to either allow or disallow the application for further appeal, and notification thereof shall be mailed to the last known post office address of each interested party. If the application for further appeal is allowed, the Board will proceed to review the established record and render a decision on the merits of the case.
Source The provisions of this § 101.61 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 pages (32164) and (32165).
§ 101.62. Disqualification to participate in hearing or decision.
(a) No referee, member of the Board or employe of the Department shall participate in the hearing or determination of any case in which he himself is an interested party. The Board will designate an alternate to serve in the absence or disqualification of any referee.
(b) A referee or member of the Board may be challenged at any time by an interested party prior to the disposition of an appeal by the referee or the Board, whichever is the subject of the challenge. A challenge to the referee may be presented orally at a scheduled hearing conducted by the designee of the Board and made a part of the record, or a written challenge may be filed with the Board. The challenge to a referee will be decided by the Board. A challenge to a member of the Board may be presented orally at a scheduled hearing before the Board or its designee and made a part of the record, or a written challenge may be filed with the Board. The challenge to a particular Board member shall be decided by the other Board members. If it is not feasible for the other Board members to reach a decision, the Board will request the Secretary of the Department to make a decision on the challenge.
Source The provisions of this § 101.62 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions
Waiver
Employer cannot reasonably claim a violation of due process where the employer waived their right to challenge a member’s impartiality by failing to make a timely motion for recusal under these regulations. Stone Container Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 657 A.2d 1333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
The provisions of this subsection (a) do not prevent one who has acted as a hearing officer in a case from later testifying as a witness in a proceeding before a referee as the regulation is intended to prevent participation in those cases where an outside interest is concerned. Evans v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 484 A.2d 822 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).
COPIES OF TESTIMONY
§ 101.71. Copies on request.
If a party to a proceeding shall file with the referee or the Board, a statement that a transcribed copy of the record of the testimony, or a part thereof, is necessary to a proper presentation of his case, either before the referee or the Board, a transcribed copy of the record of the testimony, or an indicated part thereof, shall be furnished to him without charge. In the event of an appeal from the decision of the Board to the Commonwealth Court, a party may request a transcribed copy of the record of the testimony, and it shall be furnished without charge.
Source The provisions of this § 101.63 adopted August 26, 1970, effective August 27, 1970, 1 Pa.B. 435.
Notes of Decisions Inadequate Record
Except in extraordinary circumstances, asserted inadequacy of the record is not grounds for reversal of an administrative agency’s decision and a remand for further hearing when the means for obtaining such relief from the agency are not employed; there are no conceivable circumstances for remand, absent application to the agency, when the alleged missing evidence is not offered in proof. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 329 A.2d 523 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974).
Notice
Alleged inadequacies in a notice of right to appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review given in a referee’s decision denying benefits do not entitle a claimant to nunc pro tunc consideration of an untimely appeal because due process does not require an agency to provide notice of right to appeal when the agency or the legislature has established a duly published procedure for hearing or appeal, and the procedure for appeal to the Board is clearly enunciated in statutes and regulations. DiIenno v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review has no duty to provide a party with notice of right to appeal, since the procedure for appealing from the decision of a referee is clearly enunciated in statutes and the regulations of the Board. Mogil v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 413 A.2d 480 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).
The failure of the Board to furnish a transcript of the hearing of the referee when requested is a violation of due process rights and deprives a claimant of the statutory right to file a brief prior to adjudication. Moyer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 388 A.2d 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
Transcript
The failure of a notice of right to appeal to inform a claimant of the right to request oral argument and present a brief or further testimony does not constitute a denial of due process, since the statutes and regulations concerning appeals from decisions of the referee clearly set out the procedure for such appeals. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 381 A.2d 1353 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978).
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.
