decided: May 16, 1979.
BREAK N EAT CORPORATION, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William F. Wiest, No. B-147159-B.
Susan H. Wilkie, with her Feldstein, Grinberg, Stein & McKee, for appellant.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 587]
An employer, Break N Eat Corporation, filed an appeal from the order entered by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which granted unemployment compensation benefits to William F. Wiest (claimant). The Bureau of Employment Security and a referee had denied benefits to claimant, and the Board had issued an order disallowing a further appeal to claimant. Thereafter, the claimant requested the Board to reconsider its order and, on August 3, 1977, the Board vacated its order, reopened the case, and directed a further hearing before a referee acting as a hearing officer for the Board, with notice to be given to all interested parties. The further hearing was held on September 8, 1977 with only the claimant and his attorney appearing before the referee.
After reviewing the transcript of the further hearing, the Board reversed the decision of the original referee and granted unemployment compensation
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 588]
benefits to the claimant.*fn1 This appeal followed and we reverse and remand.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 589]
Since the record in this case*fn2 fails to indicate that notice of the further or remand hearing was given to the employer, a further hearing must be held to afford all interested parties the opportunity to be heard. Mileski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 334, 379 A.2d 643 (1977). It is well established that, when the Board allows an appeal, all parties shall have the opportunity to be heard. Such an opportunity is not available to an employer who has no notice of the scheduled hearing. This record does not disclose a notice to the employer of the remand hearing. Thus, for the reasons detailed in Mileski v. Unemployment Compensation Page 589} Board of Review, supra, this case must be remanded to the Board so that the employer may have the opportunity to participate in the remand hearing ordered by the Board.
And Now, this 16th day of May, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review granting unemployment compensation benefits to William F. Wiest is hereby reversed, and this case is remanded to the Board for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.