CINRAM MANUFACTURING, LLC v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW Nos. 409 C.D. 2010, 424 C.D. 2010, 425 C.D. 2010, 426 C.D. 2010, 427 C.D. 2010, 428 C.D. 2010
Cinram Manufacturing, LLC, Petitioner, v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Filed: January 12, 2011.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM.
Cinram Manufacturing LLC (Employer), petitions for review from orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the decisions of the referees granting benefits to Anthony Scalzo, Darlene Gebert, David Reed, Daniel Kachinski, Kurt Bryer and Darlene Sakosy (Claimants). We affirm.
Claimants are long time employees of the Employer. Employer utilizes a 4x4 rotating work shift whereby employees work twelve hour shifts on four consecutive days. The employees then have four consecutive days off. Thus, an employee works forty-eight hours during one week and thirty-six hours the next week.
In March of 2009, Employer changed its policy of holiday payment from twelve hours of holiday pay to eight hours of holiday pay. During the claim weeks at issue in each appeal, according to the rotation, Claimants' normal work schedule was thirty-six hours of work.
The referees determined that Claimants were entitled to unemployment benefits under Sections 401 and 4(u) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897,
On appeal, the Board adopted the findings of the referees and affirmed the decisions. The Board further observed that Employer's recently instituted reduction in holiday pay had the effect of reducing Claimants' annual wages. This appeal followed.
Section 4(u) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(u), defines "unemployed" as follows:
"In order for a claimant to be unemployed under Section 4(u) of the Law, during the weeks in question he must have been working less than his normal full-time work."
In determining that the claimants were not entitled to benefits, this court stated:
In this case, unlike
Employer argues, however, that Claimants worked their regular full-time schedule for the weeks at issue and that their full-time hours were not reduced due to lack of work. The underlying claims, according to Employer, were filed because a scheduled company holiday happened to fall upon a day that otherwise would have been a work day for Claimants. Employer argues that the fact that it paid eight hours of holiday pay, rather than twelve, is irrelevant to determining whether Claimants were "unemployed."
Employer maintains that case law supports the proposition that a pre-scheduled day off due to a company recognized holiday, does not result in an employee becoming "unemployed" within the meaning of the Act. Employer relies on the language in Section 4(u) of the Law which states that "[n]o employe shall be deemed eligible for compensation during a plant shutdown for vacation who received directly or indirectly any funds from the employer as vacation allowance." In
The Board responds that the compensation at issue is "holiday pay" and not a "vacation allowance." "Holiday pay" is defined in 34 Pa. Code § 61.1 as "[r]emuneration payable for services performed in the claim week in which a legal holiday occurs for purposes of computing compensation for partial and part-total compensation." We agree with the Board that holiday pay is not synonymous with vacation or vacation allowance. Here, Employer's representative did not testify that there was a "plant shutdown for vacation" or that Claimants received a "vacation allowance". Rather, Employer's representative stated that Employer had scheduled holidays, but that based on demand, there is work on a scheduled holiday. (R.R. at 38a.) Moreover, Claimants were not excused from working, but rather, were not scheduled to work.
Here, Claimants worked less than their normal full-time work and were thus unemployed. In accordance with the above, the decisions of the Board are affirmed.
Now, January 12, 2011, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in the above-captioned matters, are affirmed.
- No Cases Found