Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Frank A. Woloszyn, No. B-234558.
James Bukac, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Colins dissents.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 165]
Frank A. Woloszyn (petitioner) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision that he was ineligible for benefits.
The Board found that, during the base year relevant to the petitioner's application, he had a total of twelve credit weeks, less than the minimum eighteen credit weeks necessary to establish financial eligibility pursuant to Section 404(c) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), 43 P.S. § 804(c).*fn1 The petitioner did not receive credit for thirty weeks during which he worked for Pennsylvania Green Thumb, Inc. (Green Thumb) such denial being based on the conclusion that such work constituted participation in a federally assisted work relief or work training program.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 166]
The petitioner does not challenge Green Thumb's status as a program funded under federal auspices, but he contends here that the Board capriciously disregarded his testimony that his employment at Green Thumb did not constitute participation in a work training program.
Our review of the record reveals that, as part of his application for benefits, the petitioner stated that Green Thumb is a program hiring persons over 55 years old in order to keep them off of relief. However, inasmuch as participation in either a work relief or a work training program may not yield wages for purposes of assessing financial eligibility, Section 4(1)(4)(8)(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(1)(4)(8)(e), we do not believe that the petitioner's testimony was capriciously disregarded.
We must also disagree with the petitioner's contention that the referee failed to properly assist him in eliciting testimony concerning his "promotion" or his duties with Green Thumb. The Board, however, found that the petitioner worked as a foreman for Green Thumb at $3.85 per hour, above the minimum wage, and further information as to the date of his "promotion" or as to the nature of his duties would be irrelevant to the determination of his eligibility for benefits here.
Last, we find no merit to the petitioner's bare assertion that the classifications created by Section 4(1)(8)(e) of the Law are unconstitutionally overbroad ...