Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Allen H. Mohrey, Jr., No. B-195071.
Charles R. Osinski, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig, Doyle and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
Before this Court is an appeal by Allen H. Mohrey, Jr. (Claimant) from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) directing that his weekly benefits rate be reduced by an amount equal to the weekly sum received from a military pension. We must affirm.
The facts of this case are undisputed. Claimant was laid off from his job as a packer at General Electric Co. on July 11, 1980, for lack of work. After applying for unemployment compensation, he established an entitlement to $162.00 per week in benefits. Because of a $450.00 per month pension which Claimant receives from having spent nearly twenty-four years in the Marine Corps., however, it has been determined that the amount of $103.00 should be deducted on a weekly basis from his compensation, thereby leaving him with a total award of $59.00 per week.*fn1 See Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 804(d)(iii).
In his appeal to this Court, Claimant argues that Section 414(a) of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MEPPA), 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(15) (Supp. IV 1980), amended by 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(15) (Supp. V 1981),*fn2 restricts pension off-set of unemployment compensation benefits to those pension payments received from a claimant's base period employer and preempts state law to the contrary such as Pennsylvania's. As General Electric Co. is his base period employer, and the pension results from his service in the Marine Corps., Claimant argues that any pension off-set of his unemployment compensation after January 1, 1981, the effective date of Section 414(a) of the MEPPA, is improper. We are constrained to disagree.
The constitutional aspects of Claimant's argument were expressly rejected by this Court in Novak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 148, 457 A.2d 610 (1983). Consistent therewith, we must again reject them here.
Claimant also tenders the theory that Pennsylvania's pension off-set requirements have been statutorily preempted. He states that Section 414(a) of the MEPPA is an amendment to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and thus subject to the preemption language of ...