Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Van Buren Sharpe, Nos. B-132819 and 132820.
Mark B. Segal, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Jonathan Vipond, III, for intervenor.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.
When Van Buren Sharpe's disability retirement pension from his former employer, the United States Post Office, was increased to the point that his weekly retirement disability benefits exceeded by more than $40 his unemployment compensation benefit rate, the Bureau of Employment Security (Board) determined that he was no longer eligible for unemployment compensation. The determination was made pursuant to Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 804(d)(iii), and it was affirmed by a referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
By timely appeal to this Court,*fn1 Sharpe has again raised the question of whether retirement benefits paid by a public employer are to be offset against unemployment compensation pursuant to the law as it existed between 1974 and 1976.*fn2
In Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Goldstein, 23 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 11, 349 A.2d 824 (1976), Bonnani v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 515, 349 A.2d 498 (1975), Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Leib, 20 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 206, 340 A.2d 927, allocatur denied (1975), Etter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 642, 316 A.2d 659, allocatur denied (1974), and Ettelson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 617, 316 A.2d 661 (1974), we held that such payments are to be offset against unemployment compensation. We see no reason to hold otherwise now.
Because of our holding on this issue, we need not address the other issue ...