Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOSEPH J. O'BRIEN v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/15/77)

decided: March 15, 1977.

JOSEPH J. O'BRIEN, APPELLANT
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Joseph J. O'Brien, No. B-129787.

COUNSEL

Robert A. Seiferth, with him Gail R. Simon, for appellant.

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 Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.

Author: Kramer

[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 273]

This is an appeal by Joseph J. O'Brien (appellant) of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated February 4, 1976, which affirmed, without opinion, a referee's determination that the appellant had become self-employed and was ineligible for continued benefits under Section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn1

[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 274]

In October of 1975, while receiving unemployment benefits resulting from a qualifying separation from a previous employer, the claimant began working on a commission basis as a part-time "enrollment representative" (salesman) for Commercial Trades Institute, Chicago, Illinois, soliciting enrollments in the educational courses offered by Commercial Trades. The claimant testified that he was under contract to Commercial Trades; that he was remunerated purely on a commission basis; that he was working part-time while on the three-month probationary training period; and that he received no reimbursement for his expenses.

On the basis of this testimony, the referee found as a fact that the claimant was under contract with Commercial Trades and worked strictly on a commission basis. Under the heading "Reasoning," the referee stated, "Inasmuch as claimant is under contract and works on a commission basis, he must be considered self-employed and therefore disqualified from receiving benefits."

We cannot affirm the determination of the compensation authorities, because we conclude that the referee's findings of fact are inadequate to support the legal conclusion that appellant was self-employed.*fn2

[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 275]

The Legislature has not defined "self-employment," but the decisional law has resolved the issue by excluding from benefit status those persons whose work circumstances do not fall within the statutory definition of "employment," e.g., Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Kessler, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 1, 365 A.2d 459 (1976); Laswick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 356, 310 A.2d 705 (1973).

The Act defines an employe as one who is performing services for an employer in employment. Section 4(i), 43 P.S. § 753(i). "Employment" is defined to mean "all personal service performed for remuneration by an individual under any contract of hire. . . ." Section 4(l)(1), 43 P.S. § 753(l)(1). (Emphasis added.) The Act further refines the definition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.