Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania dated May 1, 1987, at No. 1309 C.D. 1984, affirming the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-229107 dated April 6, 1984, affirming the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Referee, Appeal No. 83-6-A-646
John Stember, James P. O'Connell, Pittsburgh, PA, FOR APPELLANT
James Bradley, Assistant Counsel, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Clifford F. Blage, Deputy Chief Counsel, Harrisburg, PA, FOR APPELLEE
This is an appeal from the affirmance by the Commonwealth Court of the denial of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act [Act], Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. 43, §§ 751-882 (Purdon 1964 & Purdon Supp. Pamph. 1988). The benefits were denied on the theory that Appellant lacked the qualifications required to secure compensation under section 801(a) of the Act which provided, among other things, that the claimant meet the financial eligibility requirements of section 804(c) of the Act.*fn1
Appellant, Mary J. Poola, had been an employee of the Beaver County Job Training Partnership Agency for over seven years. In October 1982, Appellant was laid off. On October 22, 1982, her employer paid her a lump sum of $2,026.00. She subsequently received unemployment compensation benefits for one year and, on October 2, 1983, she filed a claim for benefits for a second year establishing July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, as the base year period. Appellant's base year, therefore, consisted of the last two quarters of 1982 and the first two quarters of 1983 with earnings for the entire fourth quarter of 1982 having been paid in a lump sum. At the hearing before the Referee, the employer explained the lump sum as follows:
Q. Could you explain this breakdown that we have marked as Exhibit Number Six?
A. Yes, what we did was give them two weeks a sort of like severance pay after the date of their termination. Like she terminated on the 4th and then we gave them the next two weeks as severance pay. And they were paid for any vacation that they had already accumulated and she had three weeks. And then we paid them for accrued vacation from the point and time of their anniversary until their termination date, their lay-off date which came out to 43 and three-quarters hours which is a little over a week.
Q. Are you saying that she had three weeks of accumulated vacation?
A. Yes, she had already worked for that.
Q. And she had one week accrued ...