Appeals, Nos. 85, 86 and 87, April T., 1962, by claimants, from decisions of Unemployment (Compensation Board of Review, Nos. 68169, 68167 and 68168, in re claims of Earl F. Hughes et al. Decisions affirmed.
Dail Eugene Sloan, with him Eugene Charles Sloan, for appellants.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (woodside, J., absent).
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 578]
In these unemployment compensation cases the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review all found that the claimants were financially ineligible under the provisions of § 404(a) and § 404(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 804(a) and § 804(c).
The three cases involve the same problem, were argued together and will be determined by this opinion. The claimants, Earl F. Hughes, Andrew S. Tobias and Andrew Paydo were last employed by the Crucible Steel Company, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and their last days of work were May 13, 1960 and May 16, 1960, respectively. They had first filed claims for benefits on June 19, 1959. At that time they were idle for only
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 579]
one week so their claims for the 1959 benefit year remained dormant until their separation from employment during the weeks of May 9, and May 16, 1960. The last compensable week under their 1959 benefit year was the week ending June 24, 1960.
They appeared at the local office during the last week of June, 1960, to file a new claim for the next benefit year. They were told by the claim taker that if they filed during the last week of June, 1960, the benefits would be based on $38 weekly but that effective July 1 benefits had been increased by the legislature to $40 weekly. They, therefore, chose to file on July 1, 1960, and drew benefits during the year ending June 30, 1961, at the $40 rate.
On July 1, 1961, each of the claimants filed new claims and it was then discovered that they had insufficient earnings during their base year which consisted of the second, third and fourth quarters of 1960 and the first quarter of 1961, to qualify under the law.
Had the applications been filed, originally, during the last week of June, 1960, they would have expired the last week of June 1961, and their base year earnings would have consisted of the four quarters of 1960, during which they had ...