Novak v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
| Citation | 457 A.2d 610,73 Pa.Cmwlth. 148 |
| Parties | Don W. NOVAK, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1983 |
| Court | Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania |
Page 610
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.
Decided March 25, 1983.
[73 Pa.Cmwlth. 149] Stephen P. McCloskey, Phillips & Faldowski, Washington, for petitioner.
Mary Ellen Krober, Mary Beth A. Stanton, Harrisburg, for respondent.
Before ROGERS, WILLIAMS and DOYLE, JJ.
WILLIAMS, Judge.
Don W. Novak (claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying him benefits under Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment
Page 611
Compensation Law, Act of December 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 804(d)(iii), which rendered him ineligible for benefits due to his receipt of a U.S. Marine Corps Military Pension.The claimant was employed by the Penn-Birmingham Bolt Company from March 1980 until April 3, 1981 when he was laid off due to poor business conditions. Prior to his employment with the Bolt Company, he had served 22 years with the U.S. Marine Corps for which he receives a monthly pension of $1,199.99, or $276.00 weekly.
On April 5, 1981 the claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits. It was established that he was entitled to $175/week with a total benefit entitlement of $5,250.00. After the filing of his application for benefits, he was notified by the Bureau of Unemployment Security that he would be ineligible for benefits as per Section 404(d)(iii) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 [73 Pa.Cmwlth. 150] P.S. 804(d)(iii). Section 404(d)(iii) provides in pertinent part:
(d) [E]ach eligible employee ... shall be paid ... compensation in an amount equal to his weekly benefit rate less ...
(iii) an amount equal to the amount of a governmental or other pension ... which is based on previous work of such individual....
The claimant contends that by virtue of a 1980 amendment to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 1 federal law has pre-empted Section 404(d)(iii) in that this section is now in direct conflict with FUTA as amended. Accordingly, he asserts that his rights to unemployment benefits have been improperly denied.
The amendment to which the claimant refers is Section 414 of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendment Act of 1980, 2 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(15), which provides in part that:
[T]he amount of compensation payable to an individual for any week which begins after March 31, 1980, and which begins in a period with respect to which such individual is receiving a governmental or other pension ... which is based on the previous work of such individual shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to the amount of such pension ... which is reasonably attributable to such week except that --
(A) the requirement of this paragraph shall apply to any pension ... only if --
(i) such pension ... is under a plan maintained (or contributed to) by a base period employer[73 Pa.Cmwlth. 151] or chargeable employer (as determined under applicable law) .... 3
While it is true that on a comparative basis the Pennsylvania law is broader in its pension offset provision than its federal counterpart, this does not necessarily mean that the two laws are in such conflict as to render the doctrine of pre-emption applicable. 4 "A duly enacted state law will not be found to violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution unless the state law and the federal law are so inconsistent that they cannot be reconciled or constructed in such a way as to permit both
Page 612
to stand." Shapp v. Sloan, 480 Pa. 449, 471, 391 A.2d 595, 606 (1978)."[U]nemployment insurance is a system of 'cooperative federalism,' in which each state receives federal funds to reimburse its costs of administering the program.... To receive these benefits, a state's program must meet certain federal requirements." Rivera v. Patino, 524 F.Supp. 136, 140 (N.D.Calif.1981). Accordingly, Congress, by enacting Section 414, has set forth certain minimum standards for compliance by the states, in order for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US STEEL (USX CLAIRTON WORKS) v. UCBR
...(citing Attenberger v. UCBR, 682 A.2d 68 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996); Latella v. UCBR, 74 Pa.Cmwlth. 14, 459 A.2d 464 (1983); Novak v. UCBR, 73 Pa.Cmwlth. 148, 457 A.2d 610 (1983)). The court then cited to decisions from other jurisdictions in which a direct contribution from the employee has been dee......
-
US STEEL (USX CLAIRTON WORKS) v. UNEM.
...bears a rational relation to the stated objectives of the Law. Latella. As we explained in Novak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Cmwlth. 148, 457 A.2d 610, 613 (1983), "[o]ff-setting a person's entitlement to benefits by amounts received through pensions preserves the u......
-
United States Steel Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, [J-20A-V-2004] (PA 9/22/2004)
...(citing Attenberger v. UCBR, 682 A.2d 68 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Latella v. UCBR, 74 Pa. Cmwlth. 14, 459 A.2d 464 (1983); Novak v. UCBR, 73 Pa. Cmwlth. 148, 457 A.2d 610 (1983)). The court then cited to decisions from other jurisdictions in which a direct contribution from the employee has been......
-
Pennsylvania Medical Soc. v. Foster
...is whether the challenged law has a rational relation to a valid state objective(s)." Novak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 148, 153, 457 A.2d 610, 612 (1983); Gambone v. Commonwealth, 375 Pa. 547, 101 A.2d 634 (1954). An overbroad statute violates subst......