Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert J. Wojciechowski, No. B-158163.
Alfred S. Pelaez, with him Perry F. DiCola, for petitioner.
David Confer, Assistant Attorney General, with him GuruJodha Singh Khalsa, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 117]
In a decision reversing the Bureau of Employment Security's determination, the referee determined that Robert Wojciechowski, claimant, was ineligible for compensation under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1),*fn1 on the ground that he had quit his job without cause. Claimant admittedly failed to file a timely appeal from that determination of the referee, dated January 3, 1978.
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 118]
Because claimant had been receiving compensation, on February 2, 1978, the Bureau issued claimant an overpayment notice, from which claimant filed a timely appeal, which is not before us here.*fn2
On February 8, 1978, claimant also filed a late appeal from the referee's January 3, 1978 determination of ineligibility. Pursuant to a hearing on that filing, the board held that, because the appeal was untimely, Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 822, provided that the decision of the referee had become the final decision of the board, so that the board had no jurisdiction to decide the merits of claimant's untimely appeal.
Claimant here appeals from the board's refusal to consider the merits of his February 8 appeal. Claimant contends that because the notice of the referee's determination did not specifically inform him that the bureau might attempt to recover payments, he could not have intelligently and knowingly "waived" his right to appeal from the referee's adverse determination of January 3.
Claimant contends that his due process rights have been violated because the referee's notice of decision, although clearly notifying him of the time limits in which his appeal could be taken, failed to notify him that, absent an appeal, the bureau could enforce claims for reimbursement of compensation he received before the referee's decision.