Summary
In Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 449 A.2d 869 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1982) this court stated that Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law, 43 P. S. § 753 (1)(2)(B) establishes a two part test to determine whether an individual is self-employed. First, the individual must be shown to be free from control or direction during the performance of her services.
Summary of this case from Holt v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
September 3, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Self-employment.
1. Under Section 4(1)(2)(B) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, a claimant is deemed self-employed and ineligible for benefits if the claimant is shown to be free from control or direction during the performance of his services and is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business. [585]
Submitted on briefs in Special Session before Judges BLATT, WILLIAMS, JR. and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2727 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Waln K. Brown, No. B-186542-B.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Case remanded. ( 60 Pa. Commw. 532. ) Hearing held. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
L. C. Heim, Dell' Alba, Heim Lecates, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Waln K. Brown (Claimant) was denied unemployment compensation benefits because the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found that his services were properly defined as self-employment and therefore ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. [1937] 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(h).
Claimant alleges that the Board received insufficient evidence to satisfy the burden of proof that his services did not constitute employment. The Law establishes a two part test to determine if an individual is self-employed. Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law. First, the Claimant must be shown to be free from control or direction during the performance of his services. Second, the Claimant must be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business. Upon a thorough review of the record, we find that there is sufficient evidence to establish that Claimant was conducting independent research absent any direction or control. It is clear that Claimant performed his services when, where, and how he chose to perform them. His association with the National Center for Juvenile Justice (the would be employer) was limited to supplying quarterly progress reports which were forwarded to (and a requirement of) the Buhl Foundation which supplied the grant financing. Furthermore, the Board received evidence that Claimant performed other consulting services unrelated to the Buhl Foundation grant. The Board found that this was substantial evidence that the Claimant had a proprietary interest in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business. Since the Board found substantial evidence that Claimant satisfied both parts of the test under Section 4(l)(2)(B) of the Law, Claimant's activity was not "employment." Jochynek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa. Commw. 86, 378 A.2d 490 (1977). Consequently, Claimant was engaged in self-employment and therefore was ineligible for compensation. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Kessler, 27 Pa. Commw. 1, 365 A.2d 459 (1976).
43 P. S. § 753(l)(2)(B).
Order affirmed.
ORDER
NOW, September 3, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated October 7, 1981 at Decision No. B-186542-B is hereby affirmed.