Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Thomas C. Levan, No. B-221665-A.
Louis M. Shucker, for petitioner.
Charles D. Donahue, Assistant Counsel, with him, Samuel H. Lewis, Assistant Counsel, and Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Palladino, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 13]
Thomas C. Levan (Petitioner) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision of the referee to deny Petitioner benefits under Section 402(a) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We affirm.
This case was previously before this Court, Levan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 507, 498 A.2d 987 (1985) (Levan I). Petitioner had been laid off from his job with Knoll International (employer) and became eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Twice he was recalled to work by employer. On both occasions he refused the position offered, claiming the recalls violated employer's recall policy. As a result, his benefits were terminated by the Office of Employment Security (OES) for refusing suitable work.
Petitioner appealed. The referee and the Board affirmed the termination of benefits on the basis that the jobs offered to Petitioner were suitable and that he did not have "good cause" to refuse. In the absence of a collective bargaining agreement, the Board concluded, "good cause" would not exist even if employer had violated its recall and seniority policies.
This Court affirmed the Board's conclusion that the work offered Petitioner was suitable. However, the Court, based on the 1980 amendment to Section 402(a) of the Law,*fn2 held that "if a claimant is recalled in violation
[ 105 Pa. Commw. Page 14]
of an established employer policy concerning seniority and recalls, and consequently would not be required to accept the recall offer, the Claimant would be eligible for benefits." Levan I, 91 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 512, 498 A.2d at 989. The case was remanded to the Board to make findings on (1) whether there was an established employer policy in existence and (2) whether it had been violated.
On remand, the Board vacated its prior decision and concluded that Petitioner was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(a) based ...