Appeal from PETITION FOR REVIEW
2697 C. D. 1987: James C. Brennan, Esq., Cynthia A. McNicholas, Esq., RANKIN, BRENNAN & DONALDSON, Media, Pa., Attorneys for Petitioner.
Clifford F. Blaze, DEP. CH. COUNSEL, James K. Bradley, ASST. COUNSEL, Gary L. Kelley, ASST. COUNSEL, Harrisburg, Pa., Attorneys for Respondent.
1398 C. D. 1988: Cynthia A. McNicholas, Esq., RANKIN, BRENNAN & DONALDSON, Media, Pa.
Clifford F. Blaze, DEP. CH. COUNSEL, James K. Bradley, ASST. COUNSEL, Gary L. Kelley, ASST. COUNSEL, Harrisburg, Pa.
Before: Honorable David W. Craig, Judge, Honorable Francis A. Barry, Judge, Honorable Bernard L. McGINLEY, Judge. Judge MacPhail did not participate in the decision in this case.
Opinion BY HONORABLE FRANCIS A. BARRY, Judge
Westinghouse Electric Corporation (the employer) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which granted benefits to Tibor Pavlanszky and John Kalalian under Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1
Claimant Pavlanskzy applied for benefits with the Office of Employment Security (OES) after the employer closed one of its plants. OES determined that the claimant was eligible to receive weekly benefits in the amount of $242.00. However, OES reduced this weekly amount by $140.00 as it determined that the claimant was receiving retirement benefits. The referee affirmed OES concluding that Section 404(d)(iii) of the Law mandated that pension payments should be deducted, dollar for dollar, from the benefits amount. The Board remanded to the referee to act as its hearing officer and to obtain:
1. A copy of Westinghouse Electric Company retirement pension plan.
2. Testimony as to what age and seniority must an employee be to obtain a retirement pension.
3. Testimony as to whether claimant, on the date of his separation from employment with Westinghouse Electric Company at his age and seniority, could, on his own, i.e., without being permanently separated by Westinghouse, request ...