decided: August 30, 1982.
ARNOLD J. SCHURE, 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 Arnold J. Schure, No. B-184330.
Lawrence M. Ludwig, with him Richard W. Bagley, Henkelman, Kreder, O'Connell & Brooks, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Associate Counsel, with him Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 491]
Arnold Schure appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review benefits denial. We affirm.
Schure was the president and one-third shareholder in Pocono Enterprises, Inc. (Pocono). When Pocono filed for bankruptcy, Schure applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The Board found him ineligible for benefits, concluding that he was an "unemployed businessman."*fn1
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 492]
The test applied in determining whether a claimant is ineligible for benefits as an "unemployed businessman" is whether the employee "exercises a substantial degree of control over the corporation.'" Starinieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 447 Pa. 256, 260, 289 A.2d 726, 728 (1972). The record discloses that Schure hired and fired employees and made business decisions, as well as performing duties as the corporation's mechanic. We conclude that the Board correctly applied the Starinieri test when it found Schure ineligible for benefits.
Schure asserts that application of the Starinieri doctrine to his situation would result in an unfair and unconstitutional denial of unemployment compensation benefits. We disagree. He would have this Court adopt an "earnings" test, contending that he made no more than the workers employed by his corporation. However, as our Supreme Court wrote in Starinieri, "[t]he Unemployment Compensation Law was not enacted to compensate individuals who fail in their business ventures and become unemployed businessmen." Id. at 258, 289 A.2d at 727. We can find no justification to deviate from this concept.
[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 493]
Schure also claims that, by denying him benefits, he was deprived of his due process rights because contributions to the Unemployment Compensation Fund were made in his name by his corporation. We have already rejected this argument. See Bagley & Huntsberger, Inc. v. Employer Accounts Review Board, Department of Labor and Industry, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 488, 383 A.2d 1299 (1978).
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-184330 dated May 21, 1980, is affirmed.
Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.