Beers v. Com. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 12 November 1993 |
| Citation | 633 A.2d 1158,534 Pa. 605 |
| Parties | Bonnie BEERS, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Appellee-Intervenor. Appeal of Bonnie BEERS and Lottie Bittinger, Appellant-Intervenor. Pearlie M. PARKER and Delores A. Wetzel, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Appellee-Intervenor. UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL UNION, LOCAL 1357, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Appellee-Intervenor. Glena VANMETRE, Delores A. Wetzel, Wayne E. Stine and Lottie E. Bittinger, Appellants, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Appellee-Intervenor. KNOUSE FOODS COOPERATIVE, INC. v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Lottie E. Bittinger, Kathy J. Myers and Glena Vanmetre, Appellant-Intervenors. Appeal of Lottie E. BITTINGER, Kathy J. Myers and Glena Vanmetre. Kathy J. MYERS, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee, Knouse Foods Cooperative, Inc., Appellee-Intervenor. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Donald Marritz, Gettysburg and Carolyn L. Carter, Chambersburg, for Bittinger.
Basil Merenda, Philadelphia, for Beers.
Donald Marritz, Gettysburg, Carolyn L. Carter, Chambersburg and Basil L. Merenda, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Clifford A. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, James K. Bradley and Maribeth Wilt-Seibert, Asst. Counsel, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, for appellees.
Bruce Bagley and H. Lee Roussel, Harrisburg, for intervenors.
Before NIX, C.J., and FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and CAPPY, JJ.
The question presented is one of first impression: whether employees have standing to appeal a determination by the Office of Employment Security ("OES") that certain fruit and vegetable processing operations are "seasonal operations" as defined by and pursuant to Section 802.5 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. 43 P.S. § 802.5. For the reasons that follow, we find that employees do not have standing to appeal a determination by the OES that certain fruit and vegetable processing operations are seasonal operations.
These thirteen consolidated appeals involve certain fruit and vegetable processing operations performed at plants located in Pennsylvania. The employers at each of these plants applied to the OES requesting a determination that these operations were seasonal operations for the purposes of Section 802.5. 2 In each instance, the OES granted seasonal status to the employer pursuant to a Notice of Determination. Each of these Notices was appealed by an employee or an employee representative to a referee; the referee decisions were appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (the "Board"); and the Board decisions were appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
Four of the appeals (Nos. 367, 404, 1754 and 1764 C.D.1987) were consolidated for argument in the Commonwealth Court at Beers v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 118 Pa.Commw. 248, 546 A.2d 1260 (1988). In that case, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the decisions of the Board granting seasonal status to each employer. 3
Eight of the appeals (Nos. 1058-1062, 1109, 1110 and 1900 C.D.1988) were consolidated for argument in the Commonwealth Court at VanMetre v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 128 Pa.Commw. 644, 564 A.2d 540 (1989). The Board had granted seasonal status in five of those appeals (Nos. 1058-1062 C.D.1988) and denied it in the remaining three appeals (Nos. 1109, 1110 and 1900 C.D.1988). The court quashed, for lack of jurisdiction, the five appeals in which the Board had granted seasonal status. In the remaining three appeals, the court vacated the orders of the Board denying seasonal status, reinstated the OES determinations granting seasonal status and dismissed the appeals. 4
In the remaining appeal (No. 1504 C.D.1989), Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Board had granted seasonal status. The Commonwealth Court summarily dismissed the Petition for Review.
Following appeal to the Commonwealth Court, appellants requested allowance of appeal before this Court, which we granted. Beers was granted and argued first. Thereafter, upon request, for reargument which we granted, Beers was consolidated with VanMetre and Myers and we scheduled oral argument on all three consolidated cases. Not all of the parties to the appeals sub judice raised the standing issue. 5 We found that issue pertinent to all of the appeals, thus, prior to oral argument, we ordered all of the parties to brief the issue.
The following three arguments were made in the instant appeals to support the employees' assertion that they have standing to appeal an unfavorable OES determination of seasonal status: (1) the employees were aggrieved by the determination and thus were aggrieved parties who had standing pursuant to the common law, (2) Section 802.5(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law confers standing on employees and (3) without standing employees would have no opportunity to challenge an unfavorable OES determination of seasonality because Section 829 of the Unemployment Compensation Law would prevent the employees from collaterally attacking an OES seasonal status determination in his or her later unemployment compensation benefit hearing. Not every employee made all three of these arguments; however, in order to dispose of these appeals in the most expeditious and efficacious manner, we have chosen to address each of these arguments in all of the appeals.
First, we turn to the question of whether the employees were aggrieved parties. 6 It is well established that in order to have standing to challenge an official order or action, a party must be "aggrieved" thereby. South Whitehall Township Police Service v. South Whitehall Township, 521 Pa. 82, 555 A.2d 793 (1989); Upper Bucks County Vocational-Technical School Education Association v. Upper Bucks County Vocational-Technical School Joint Committee, 504 Pa. 418, 474 A.2d 1120 (1984); Franklin Township and County of Fayette v. Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources, 500 Pa. 1, 452 A.2d 718 (1982); Wm. Penn Parking Garage v. City of Pittsburgh, 464 Pa. 168, 346 A.2d 269 (1975) (plurality opinion). A party "who is not adversely affected in any way by the matter he seeks to challenge is not 'aggrieved' thereby." Wm. Penn, 464 Pa. at 192, 346 A.2d at 280.
In order to be "aggrieved" "a party must (a) have a substantial interest in the subject-matter of the litigation; (b) the interest must be direct; and (c) the interest must be immediate and not a remote consequence." South Whitehall, 521 Pa. at 86, 555 A.2d at 795. The interest which the employees are seeking to protect in these appeals is their right to collect unemployment compensation benefits.
In Parker v. Pennsylvania, Department of Labor and Industry, 115 Pa.Commw. 93, 540 A.2d 313 (1988), aff'd per curiam, 521 Pa. 531, 557 A.2d 1061 (1989), reh'g denied, the Commonwealth Court held that an OES determination of seasonal status is not an adjudication of an employee's right to collect unemployment compensation benefits. 7 A finding of seasonal status is only one of the issues relevant to an employee's ineligibility under Section 802.5 to collect unemployment compensation benefits. If an employee is later denied unemployment compensation benefits and decides to appeal that decision, he or she will have the opportunity at his or her unemployment compensation benefit hearing to litigate the issues relevant to the denial of his or her claim including the issue of whether the operation for which the employee works is, in fact, a seasonal operation. As such, employees are not adversely affected by and do not have a substantial, direct and immediate interest in an OES determination of seasonal status. Thus, they are not "aggrieved" by such determination and lack standing to challenge it.
The second argument raised, that 43 P.S. § 802.5(e) confers standing to appeal an OES seasonal status determination on employees, is without merit. Section 802.5(e) provides as follows: "Any determination issued under the provisions of this section shall be subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as all other determinations issued under this act." Section 802.5(e) does not confer standing on any party, rather, Section 802.5(e) provides that a party who has standing may seek review of an unfavorable OES seasonal status determination in the same fashion as all other determinations issued under the Unemployment Compensation Law. Thus, Section 802.5(e) does not confer standing on employees to appeal an unfavorable OES seasonal status determination.
The last argument advanced, that 43 P.S. § 829 would prevent an employee from collaterally attacking an OES seasonal status determination in his or her later unemployment compensation benefit hearing, is likewise without merit. Section 829 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
Subject to appeal proceedings and judicial review, any right, fact or matter in issue which was directly passed upon or necessarily involved in any decision of a referee or the board or the Court and which has become final shall be conclusive for all purposes of this act and shall not be subject to collateral attack as among all affected parties who had notice of such decision ...
43 P.S. § 829 (emphasis added). It is clear from the plain words of the statute that Section 829 only applies to parties to a proceeding. There is no provision in Section 802.5 for participation by employees in the OES decision as to seasonal status....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lukes v. Department of Public Welfare
...is not a jurisdictional question." deYoung, 588 Pa. at 201, 903 A.2d at 1168 (quoting Beers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 534 Pa. 605, 611 n. 6, 633 A.2d 1158, 1160 n. 6 (1993)). Consequently, the CALJ in the instant case erred in raising and addressing the issue of standing......
-
Housing Auth. v. PA CIVIL SERVICE COM'N
...over the action, as it necessarily would under Article III of the federal Constitution. See Beers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 534 Pa. 605, 611, 633 A.2d 1158, 1161 (1993); Witt v. Dep't of Banking, 493 Pa. 77, 83, 425 A.2d 374, 376 (1981); Jones Memorial Baptist Church v. Brackeen,......
-
In re Duran
...v. Zoning Board of Pittsburgh, 554 Pa. 249, 255 n. 6, 721 A.2d 43, 46 n. 6 (1998); see also Beers v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 534 Pa. 605, 611 n. 6, 633 A.2d 1158, 1161 n. 6 (1993); Jones Memorial Baptist Church v. Brackeen, 416 Pa. 599, 602, 207 A.2d 861, 863 (1965). Compar......
-
In re Hickson
...demonstrate how a victim affiant is uniquely endowed with an entitlement of standing. See generally Beers v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 534 Pa. 605, 633 A.2d 1158, 1161 (1993). Rather, the Majority enunciates the victim's entitlement to seek judicial review of a disapproved pr......