Appeals from the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the cases of In Re: Claims of John Gostic, No. B-266787; Frank Pratten, No. B-266900; and Ralph Marino, No. B-266930.
Mark R. Hornak, with him, Donald G. Lucidi, Buchanan Ingersoll P.C., for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Lawrence R. Chaban, Yablonski, Costello, Leckie & Chaban, for intervenors, Ralph Marino and Frank Pratten.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Colins, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Narick.
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 242]
Consolidated for our review are appeals by Cooper Industries, Inc., McGraw Edison Power Systems Division (Employer) from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) awarding benefits to Ralph Marino, Frank Pratten and John Gostic (hereinafter collectively referred to as Claimants).*fn1 We affirm.
Claimants had received work-related injuries which rendered them eligible for workers' compensation benefits. Employer had a light duty program designed to assist disabled employees' return to work and Claimants participated in this program. In November 1986, Employer decided to abolish the light duty program. As a result, Claimants' workers' compensation benefits were reinstated. Additionally, they applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The referee disqualified Claimants from receiving benefits pursuant to Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn2 On appeal, the Board remanded to the referee directing two
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 243]
questions be asked of Claimants: (1) whether they would limit their availability to work for McGraw Edison if they were able to work; (2) whether they would work for any other employer in the labor market if they were able to work. The Board subsequently reversed the referee and granted benefits.*fn3 The appeals have been consolidated for our review.
Employer argues on appeal that (1) the Board abused its discretion by remanding the matter to the referee for the purpose of taking additional testimony, (2) the Board's findings that Claimants were able and available for suitable work in the labor market were not supported by substantial evidence and (3) the Board's findings that Claimants were able and available for suitable employment constitutes an erroneous conclusion of law.*fn4
[ 124 Pa. Commw. Page 244]
Intervenors initially rebut Employer's contention that the Board's remand order was improper by arguing that Employer's objections to the remand orders are untimely. We disagree. It is well settled that an appeal from a Board remand order is interlocutory and unappealable as of right. Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 496 Pa. 113, 436 A.2d 179 (1981); Abington School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 456 A.2d 1152 (1983). The reasoning behind this rule is to ...