Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Joseph John Enzana, No. B-117308.
Joseph John Enzana, appellant, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
This is an appeal by Joseph J. Enzana from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated June 4, 1973, which affirmed a referee's determination that Enzana was liable for a "fault overpayment" of $480.00 in accordance with Section 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 The only issue before us is whether the facts support a conclusion that a "fault overpayment" has occurred. We hold that they do and affirm.
Enzana was employed by P.K.F. Construction Company as a union laborer until September 22, 1971. After being separated from this employment he applied for and began receiving unemployment compensation benefits. While he was receiving benefits Enzana was recalled to work (effective November 15, 1971) by a prior employer (J. D. Tool and Machine Company). J. D. Tool and Machine offered to restore Enzana's previous job with full seniority rights. Enzana refused this offer, because
after his separation from J. D. Tool and Machine he had joined the Laborers' Union, and he preferred to be unemployed rather than jeopardize the benefits he derived from union membership. P.K.F. was a union employer, and J. D. Tool was not.
Under regulations of the Bureau of Employment Security, J. D. Tool was obligated to inform the Bureau of Enzana's refusal within three days, which it did not do.*fn2 The Bureau did receive word of the refusal on February 24, 1972, and, on March 17, 1972, the Bureau issued a determination that Enzana was ineligible on the basis of Section 401(d) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 801(d). The crux of this determination was that, during the weeks in question, Enzana was not realistically attached to the labor market because he had limited his availability to only employers who use the services of the Laborer's Union.
This determination was appealed to a referee, who affirmed the Bureau. An appeal to the Board yielded the same result, and no further appeal was taken.
Because the effect of this final adjudication was a conclusion that Enzana had not been eligible during eight weeks when he actually received benefits, the Bureau, on February 16, 1973, issued a determination of "fault overpayment" under Section 804(a). This section reads as follows:
"(a) Any persons who by reason of his fault has received any sum as compensation under this act to which he was not entitled shall be liable to repay to the Unemployment Compensation Fund to the credit of the Compensation Account a sum equal to the amount so received by him. Such sum shall be collectible (1) in the ...