Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Reginald Gaskins, No. B-184736.
Gerald Silverman, with him Marvin C. Gaer, for petitioner.
Karen Durkin, Assistant Attorney General, with her, Elsa Newman-Silverstein, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. Judge Wilkinson, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 214]
Claimant appeals to this Court to reverse a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the determination of the referee that claimant's appeal from the decision of the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) was untimely filed. We find no error in the decision of the Board.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 215]
Claimant worked for Jefferson Hospital as an elevator operator group leader until his dismissal on December 13, 1979, for willful misconduct. His unemployment compensation claim was denied by the Bureau, which sent him proper notice of his failure to qualify. According to Bureau records, the decision was made, and notice thereof was sent on February 29, 1980.
The hearing before the referee was confined solely to the issue of whether the notice was received so that the appeal could be filed in a timely manner. Claimant testified that he did not receive the notice until March 19, 1980, when it was handed to him at his home by a stranger, who said that it had been delivered to the wrong address, even though it was correctly addressed. Claimant further testified that he went to the address where the notice was allegedly delivered, but the occupants knew nothing of the letter or the young man who had delivered it to claimant.
The next day, according to his testimony, claimant went to his local unemployment office, and filed his appeal from the Bureau determination, stating thereon that the reason for the late*fn1 filing was delivery to the wrong address. The referee heard his testimony, but dismissed the claim, reasoning that, since the provisions of the Act concerning timely appeal are mandatory, she had no jurisdiction to allow the appeal.
Claimant then appealed to the Board, giving as his reason therefor that the decision of the referee was "harsh and unjust." The Board affirmed the referee's decision, making no additional findings.
[ 59 Pa. Commw. Page 216]
Upon appeal to this Court, claimant raised two issues: (1) whether the presumption of timely delivery of an administrative notice is sufficient basis to deny an untimely appeal, and (2) whether the determination of ineligibility by the Bureau violated claimant's constitutional ...