The Commonwealth Court has ruled that a claimant who was laid off from his full-time union job should not be denied unemployment benefits based on a single shift at a dog day care for which he earned $74.39.

A three-judge panel of the appeals court said the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in reaching its benefits determination, incorrectly considered that one day's work at the dog day care and the claimant's subsequent request not to be scheduled for future shifts to be a voluntary resignation without a necessitous and compelling reason.

According to the opinion penned by Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson, claimant Gero von Dehn worked sporadically at Camp Bow Wow as a part-time employee, along with numerous other jobs, from 2013 through 2016. In September 2016, von Dehn worked full time, plus overtime, on a union job constructing sets for a TV series. In December 2016, von Dehn was laid off from the full-time union job. Later that month, von Dehn worked one four-hour shift at Camp Bow Wow.

Von Dehn was required to be on call to start work immediately for the full-time employer in January 2017, Simpson wrote. Camp Bow Wow required advanced employee scheduling and didn't allow cancellations and “based on the gross disparity in earnings between full-time plus overtime pay in the union job and sporadic part-time work with Camp Bow Wow, claimant chose not to risk his union job.” Von Dehn notified Camp Bow Wow not to schedule him for future shifts. The union, however, didn't call von Dehn back in to work in January as he had initially anticipated.

In January 2017, von Dehn applied for unemployment benefits and listed Camp Bow Wow as his last employer on his benefits application. Simpson wrote that the unemployment benefits claim listed two separate employers, with the full-time employer listed first, Camp Bow Wow listed second and the full-time employer listed again. However, according to the opinion, Camp Bow Wow was the only employer interview or questionnaire information in the record. 

The Department of Labor and Industry, treating Camp Bow Wow as the separating employer, determined von Dehn was eligible for unemployment benefits because his desire to make himself available for a full-time employment opportunity was a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting his part-time job.

Camp Bow Wow appealed the department's decision. According to Simpson, a nonlawyer representative for Camp Bow Wow said, “'We are not here to dispute [claimant]'s eligibility for benefits. It's really the percentage that we were being allocated versus his primary employer [i.e., full-time employer], who laid him off.'”

The referee of the rehearing reversed the department's decision because von Dehn, according to the opinion, didn't have a definite return date for the full-time job and therefore lacked a necessitous and compelling reason to quit his job with Camp Bow Wow.

Von Dehn appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and the board affirmed the referee's decision without any separate findings, Simpson wrote.

Von Dehn petitioned the Commonwealth Court for review, restating that he applied for unemployment benefits because of his layoff from his full-time employer and that his part-time employer Camp Bow Wow shouldn't have been involved in the claim at all.

Simpson wrote that the department, referee and board failed to consider von Dehn's unemployment benefits eligibility with regard to the full-time employer.

Simpson cited the Commonwealth Court's 1976 decision in Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Fabric, which held that a ”'part-time job must have yielded income in excess of the partial benefit credit … before a claimant can be denied any benefits because of a voluntary separation.'”

The Commonwealth Court found the reason for the separation from the part-time job was irrelevant to the eligibility analysis.

“In such a situation, a determination of whether the claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his part-time position has no place in the analysis of his eligibility for UC benefits,” Simpson said.

The Commonwealth Court also found that the board didn't calculate Dehn's partial benefit credit nor did it compare that amount to his part-time earnings from Camp Bow Wow.

“Thus, the board could not and did not sustain its burden of demonstrating that claimant's separation from Camp Bow Wow rendered him ineligible for UC benefits,” Simpson wrote, adding, “Although the record does not indicate claimant's UC weekly benefit amount, we do not require any calculation to discern that claimant's separation from Camp Bow Wow could not have affected the amount of UC benefits to which he was entitled as a result of his layoff by full-time employer.”

Simpson was joined by Judges Christine Fizzano Cannon and Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter.

When reached for comment, the Pennsylvania Department Labor and Industry stated it doesn't comment on court rulings.

Von Dehn said he was thrilled with the Commonwealth Court's reversal.

(Copies of the 11-page opinion in Von Dehn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, PICS No. 18-0459, are available at http://at.law.com/PICS.)