Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Austin W. Remaly, Jr., No. B-169030 and B-169031.
Robert M. Davison, Turtzo, Spry, Powlette & Sbrocchi, for petitioner.
Elsa D. Newman-Silverstine, Assistant Attorney General, with her Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 55 Pa. Commw. Page 552]
Austin W. Remaly, Jr. (claimant) appeals from two orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed two orders of referees determining that claimant was subject to fault overpayments, pursuant to Section 804(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 874(a). We affirm.
On July 14, 1974, claimant applied for and received benefits after termination of his position with Ironton Prints, Inc. On August 12, 1974, claimant began part-time work with Laneco at the rate of $3.50 per hour. Claimant continued this part-time work until August 23, 1975, when he was terminated for dishonesty. Claimant failed to report this work to the Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security (Bureau); consequently, he received an overpayment of $3967 in benefits.
On January 20, 1976, claimant began working as an intermittent intake interviewer for the Bureau. Claimant also failed to report this income and, as a result, received an overpayment of $82 in benefits. The compensation authorities, after hearings, determined that claimant was subject to fault overpayments
[ 55 Pa. Commw. Page 553]
in the amount of $4049, and claimant's appeal to this Court followed.
For much of the time here in issue, claimant informed the Bureau of his employment status by mailing in claims cards. These cards include a space for earnings received during the compensable period. Upon receipt of the cards, the Bureau records the information on a "UC-100" card, in order to reflect the reporting history of each claimant.
Claimant first contends that the UC-100 card was not properly admitted as a business record. We disagree. The local claims supervisor identified the document and testified at length regarding its mode of preparation by the Bureau. We believe that this testimony satisfies the requirement of Section 6108(b) of the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 42 Pa. C.S. § 6108(b),*fn1 and that the referee properly considered the document.*fn2
Nevertheless, even if the UC-100 card were hearsay, claimant failed to object to its admission and the document is therefore ...