Appeal, No. 15, Oct. T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-61852, in re claim of Albert L. Trader. Decision affirmed.
Milford J. Meyer, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 437]
Albert L. Trader was last employed as a laborer by the H. K. Porter Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 438]
His final day of work was September 11, 1959, on which date he had a valid separation. Trader thereafter after filed an application for unemployment compensation, and received benefits for thirty weeks. On September 12, 1960, having had no intervening employment, he filed an application for benefits for a second benefit year, which was within ninety days after the termination of the preceding benefit year. 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 set forth in Section 4(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 record discloses that, on April 21, 1960, claimant exhausted his entitlement for the first benefit year by filing a claim for his final compensable week. On that date, according to his own signed statement, claimant and was notified of the requirement of Section 4(w)(2) that he must maintain an active registration for work by reporting to the local office at intervals of not more than sixty days, and was given a from UC-483. See Lodge Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 626, 169 A.2d 305. Claimant did not report thereafter until June 23, 1960, which was beyond the sixty-day period.
It is contended by claimant's counsel that his client was misled by an interviewer for the Bureau. This contention was not advanced until after the initial decision of the Board of Review. Claimant's statement to the Bureau was as follows: "I thought I had reported every sixty days. I evidently miscalculated the time". In his petition for appeal from the Bureau's decision, claimant assigned the following reason: "Misunderstanding of time to report". In his petition for appeal from the decision of the Referee, claimant assigned the
[ 197 Pa. Super. Page 439]
following reason: "I reported to the office three times". Cf. Winder Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 ...