Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of David A. Hurlock, No. B-215470-B.
Francine Ostrovsky, Assistant Chief Counsel, with her, Herbert W. Hoffman, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles Hasson, Chief Counsel, for petitioner.
Donald L. Jones, Pannebaker & Associates, P.C., for intervenor, Manpower, Inc.
Judges Doyle and Barry, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle. Judge Williams, Jr., did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 520]
The Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Employment Security (OES) petitions for review of
[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 521]
the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming*fn1 the decision and order of a referee which reversed the determination of the OES which in turn had denied the request of Manpower, Inc. of Harrisburg (Manpower) for "relief from charges" pursuant to Section 302(a)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, added by Section 4 of the Act of May 26, 1949, as amended, 43 P.S. § 782(a)(1), for the benefits received by a former employee, David A. Hurlock*fn2 (Hurlock).
The findings of fact made by the referee, and affirmed by the Board, reveal that Hurlock was employed by Manpower from February 1, 1982 through February 5, 1982 and, after subsequent employment with various employers, he filed an Application for Benefits effective September 21, 1982. As one of Hurlock's base year*fn3 employers, Manpower was notified*fn4 that Hurlock had been found eligible for benefits and that a percentage of his benefits would be charged against Manpower's reserve account. Manpower then
[ 88 Pa. Commw. Page 522]
filed the request for relief from charges which is at issue here.
Manpower is in the business of supplying temporary help to employer clients and Hurlock worked for Manpower as a temporary industrial employee. When such an employee is hired the employee remains the employee of Manpower. Manpower provides oral and written instructions that upon completion of an assignment with a client, he is to make a telephone contact to advise Manpower of his availability for further work. Manpower maintains a twenty-four hour answering service to receive such calls. After Hurlock completed a two day assignment on February 5, 1982, he did not notify Manpower of his availability and Manpower had no further contact from him to explain why he voluntarily terminated his employment.
As required by Section 302(a)(1), the OES maintains a separate reserve account for each employer which is charged with compensation paid to each individual who received base year wages from that employer in the proportion that such wages bear to the individual's total wages from all of his base year employers. An employer may be relieved from such charges under a proviso to Section 302(a)(1) "if the [OES] finds that such individual was separated from his most recent work for such employer due to being discharged for willful ...