April 13, 1961
LODGE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.
Appeal No. 116, Oct. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-60238, in re claim of George Lodge, Jr. Decision affirmed.
George Lodge, Jr., appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 627]
OPINION BY WRIGHT, J.
George Lodge, Jr., an octogenarian, was last employed by Amchem Products, Ambler, Pennsylvania, in a clerical capacity. His final day of work was July 31, 1959, on which date he had a valid separation from his employment. Lodge thereafter filed an application for unemployment compensation, and received benefits for thirty weeks. On August 6, 1960, having had no intervening employment, Lodge filed an application for a second benefit year based upon the same separation and the same base year earnings. His application was disallowed by the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Board of Review on the ground that he had failed to comply with the active registration requirement now set forth in Section
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 6284]
(w)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. 751 et seq. This appeal followed.
The present language of Section 4(w)(2) was inserted by the amendment of December 17, 1959, P.L. 1893, 43 P.S. 753(w)(2), and appears in the footnote.*fn1 We had occasion to consider this amendment in two recent cases, in each of which we held that the failure of a claimant to comply with the provisions of the statute invalidated the application for benefits. See Marinoff Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 332, 168 A.2d 606; Crompton Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 336, 168 A.2d 608.
In the instant case the Referee and the Board made, inter alia, the following findings of fact: "2. On April 21st, 1960 the claimant filed his last compensable claim on his 1959 application. 3. Claimant was given an exit interview and was notified on April 21st, 1960 that he would have to maintain an active registration for work by reporting to the Local Office every sixty days. He was given a form UC-483 at that time. 4. The claimant next reported to the Local Office on August 6th, 1960, which was beyond the
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 629]
sixty day period". Our examination of the record discloses that these findings of fact are supported by competent evidence, and they are therefore conclusive upon appeal: McGinnis Unemployment Compensation Case, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 95, 132 A.2d 749; Davis Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 116, 144 A.2d 452.
Claimant asserts that he "was not advised that he had to report to the unemployment compensation office every (60) days in the interim period, and was not given a form U.C.-483". However, a representative of the Bureau was present at the hearing before the Referee and produced a statement,*fn2 admittedly signed by claimant, acknowledging receipt of a copy of form UC-483. It should perhaps be noted that this form explains the provisions of Section 4(w)(2). We perceive no merit in claimant's contention that he was not afforded the opportunity of cross-examination.
Claimant also contends that the Board of Review should not have affirmed the Referee's decision without a hearing. However, there is nothing in the record to show that claimant requested and was refused the opportunity to be heard. Under such circumstances, the absence of a hearing before the Board by way of argument does not violate the requirements of due process: Davidson Unemployment Compensation Case, 189 Pa. Superior Ct. 543, 151 A.2d 870.