Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LOUIS J. HAWRYLAK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (05/09/83)

decided: May 9, 1983.

LOUIS J. HAWRYLAK, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. ALVIN C. MOYER, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. NICK CHUBAROV, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT. HARRY J. LOGUE, PETITIONER V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In re: Claim of Louis J. Hawrylak, No. B-189490; Claim of Alvin C. Moyer, No. B-189403; Claim of Nick Chubarov, No. B-190887, and Claim of Harry J. Logue, No. B-204618.

COUNSEL

John Stember, with him Mark P. Cancilla, Regis J. McNally and Deborah Comay, for petitioners.

John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.

Author: Williams

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 224]

Claimants*fn1 appeal Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) orders affirming referees' decisions upholding the Office of Employment Security's

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 225]

(OES) deduction of claimants' social security old age payments and pensions from their unemployment weekly benefit rates pursuant to Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn2 We affirm.

The facts are not in dispute. Claimants either retired or were laid off by their respective employers due to lack of work. During 1980 and 1981, claimants applied for unemployment compensation benefits. Although the OES found claimants eligible for unemployment benefits, under Section 404(d)(iii) of the Law*fn3 each individual's weekly benefit rate was reduced by the amount of social security and private pension payments received.*fn4

Although the OES offsetting of designated disqualifying wage-replacement income against unemployment compensation benefits was done pursuant to Section 404(d)(iii), and notwithstanding that Section 404(d)(iii) was the sole basis for, and the exclusive statutory provision referenced in the Board's adjudication, claimants challenge, on constitutional and other grounds, Section 3304(a)(15) of the Federal

[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 226]

Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U.S.C. ยง 3304(a)(15).*fn5

Claimants primarily contend that Section 3304(a)(15) of FUTA denies them equal protection in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; that the federal statute embodies an ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.