§ 65.103. [Reserved].
Source The provisions of this § 65.103 adopted July 1, 1969; amended September 3, 1976, effective September 4, 1976, 6 Pa.B. 2107; reserved January 2, 1998, effective January 3, 1998, 28 Pa.B. 21. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (224421) to (224423).
Notes of Decisions Benefit Eligibility
Claimant was not entitled to benefits based upon assertion that claimant retired due to ‘‘impending layoff’’ when claimant did so after attaining maximum pension benefit amount. Boyle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 566 A.2d 1259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Normal Retirement Date
This regulation makes no mention of a normal retirement date determination. Therefore, when the employer makes an offer of full pension rights to an employee to retire, and the employee accepts such an offer, a finding of when the ‘‘normal retirement date’’ occurs is not necessary to the application of the statute or regulation. Dannerth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Offset of Benefits
Exemption did not apply to unemployment compensation claimants because they were eligible to retire under their employer’s retirement plan at the time the plant closed regardless of the special plant closing retirement plan; in order for the exemption to apply, the claimant must be permanently and involuntarily separated from employment prior to his retirement date. Hornsberger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 718 A.2d 359 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998); appeal denied by 758 A.2d 1203 (Pa. 1999).
Unemployment compensation benefits are reduced by the amount of pension moneys paid by an employer to an employe who has elected to retire under an enhanced retirement program. PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
The Unemployment Compensation Board properly determined that the employe received a pension of $494 per week and that this pension was entirely contributed to by the employer and because the employe’s weekly pension exceeded the calculated weekly benefit rate of $340, the unemployment benefits were reduced to zero. Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
When the employe accepted the plan which permitted retirement at age 50, that age then became for the employe the age of retirement and the employe was therefore not separated from employment prior to the retirement date. Since the employe was not separated from employment, however voluntarily or involuntarily, ‘‘prior to retirement date,’’ the regulatory exception to the rule of pension offset does not apply. The plain language of the excepting regulation requires that an employe be separated prior to retirement date, and, because the employe was not so separated, pension benefits could be deducted from the unemployment benefits. Dannerth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 55 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Claimant reached the actual retirement date. The age at which claimant may have intended to retire, the offer of an enhancement plan that actually enabled claimant’s earlier retirement without penalty, claimant’s preference for delaying retirement in order to receive a larger pension, as well as other circumstances pertaining to ‘‘normal’’ retirement age, are not part of the relevant inquiry under this regulation. Therefore, claimant’s pension could be deducted from any unemployment compensation which claimant would otherwise be entitled to receive. Salerno, Jr. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 674 A.2d 776 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
Although Claimant neither intended to retire nor considered self to be retired, at the time of separation claimant was admittedly eligible to retire under employer’s plan and was eligible to receive pension money without penalty. Contrary to claimant’s assertions, claimant’s eligibility to retire was determinative, and the Unemployment Compensation Board correctly applied 43 Pa.C.S. § 804(d)(2) to determine claimant’s weekly benefit rate by reducing the benefit amount from monthly retirement income even though claimant took retirement benefits in a lump sum payment. Rathvon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 663 A.2d 893 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
This section was not inconsistent with Unemployment Compensation Law (43 P. S. § 804(d)(2)) or Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (26 U.S.C.A. § 3304(a)(15)) even though it did not allow for the offset of retirement benefits against unemployment benefits in certain cases involving liquidation of pension benefits as a result of plant closings. Teledyne Columbia-Summerill Carnegie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 634 A.2d 665 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Unemployment compensation claimants who were separated from employment prior to retirement due to a plant closing were entitled to receive unemployment compensation without a deduction for pension benefits because this section was designed to protect a worker from the devastating effects of a plant closing. Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 549 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988); on reargument 561 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Retirement benefits paid to an employe separated from employment due to a plant closing before employe reaches retirement age are not deducted from unemployment compensation. Westinghouse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 561 A.2d 80 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).
Separation
Claimant was not permanently and involuntarily separated from employment prior to retirement date, as claimant was eligible to retire at anytime. The fact that the claimant had no plans to retire at the time of separation was irrelevant. Grace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 631 A.2d 748 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).
Separation
Claimants remained on lay-off status after the plant closed and continued to accrue service credit. Because of this ongoing relationship, claimants were not fully, and not necessarily permanently, ‘‘separated’’ from employment; thus, employer was entitled to offset the weekly amount of the pensions against any unemployment benefits to which claimants were entitled. Attenberger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
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.
