Appeal from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the cases of In Re: Claims of Margaret A. LaSota, No. B-260896; Rose F. Morreale, No. B-260897; Eleanor Roman, No. B-260898; Josephine M. Triani, No. B-260899; Amelia Grigalonis, No. B-260900; Agnes P. Gambino, No. B-260901; Jane Drost, No. B-260902; Mary C. Knitowski, No. B-260903; Ramona C. Keiderling, No. B-260904; Josephine Modlesky, No. B-260905; Carmello Suriano, No. B-260906; Dorothy Alfano, No. B-260907; Rosalie Alu, No. B-260908; Natalie Pliscott, No. B-260909; Carol Benfante, No. B-260910; Lucille C. Battle, No. B-260911; Mary M. McNutty, No. B-260912; Rose G. Cellucci, No. B-260913; Mary G. Lattore, No. B-260914; Marie Modeski, No. B-260915; Leona Caputo, No. B-260916; Rose DePrimo, No. B-260917, Alfreda J. Suchocki et al., No. B-260918 and Clara Kosik, No. B-260920, dated September 2, 1987.
James A. Diamond, Handler, Gerber, Johnston & Aronson, for petitioners.
James K. Bradley, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 628]
Margaret LaSota and twenty-nine other claimants (claimants) appeal Unemployment Compensation Board
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 629]
of Review orders affirming referee decisions denying claimants benefits because their earnings during an otherwise compensable vacation shutdown exceeded the maximum amount permitted for eligibility. Section 404(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 We reverse and remand.
The claimants, garment manufacturer employees, received "vacation pay" and holiday bonuses prior to their employer's scheduled two-week December shutdown. The Board determined that each employee's payment should be allocated as earnings to individual shutdown days, in an amount equal to the employee's regular daily wage rate, until the total payment was exhausted.*fn2 The claimants concede that this allocation process resulted in excess earnings, and thus ineligibility, with respect to the first week of the shutdown. However, they contend that the Board miscalculated in finding*fn3 that they also had excess earnings during the second week.
Based on our review of the Board's findings, we agree with the claimants. The Board expressly found that the vacation pay received in December was allocable
[ 119 Pa. Commw. Page 630]
to that period. Finding of Fact No. 5, Board's Decision No. B-260896. A pro tanto allocation to each shutdown day gradually depletes the total sum paid so that the amount to be allocated in the second week would not exceed the maximum earnings permitted for eligibility for that week.*fn4
The Board alternatively contends that its conclusion is supportable for reasons not relied on in its decision, and therefore this Court can sustain the result. Of course, where the Board assigns an erroneous legal reason to a correct decision, this Court can sustain the result where the record clearly reflects the correct basis for the decision. Waltz v. ...