Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hitchcock v. Board of Review

Decided: April 20, 1978.

PAMELA HITCHCOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRY, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENT



On appeal from Board of Review, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor and Industry.

Halpern, Larner and King. The opinion of the court was delivered by Larner, J.A.D.

Larner

The Board of Review of the Department of Labor and Industry denied appellant's claim for unemployment benefits because of lack of qualification resulting from the absence of sufficient base weeks or wages to support a valid claim. Claimant's employment consisted of work in the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

The Federal Unemployment Tax Act requires states to permit a claimant who has worked in more than one state

during the base year to combine the employment and earned wages for the purpose of satisfying the statutory qualification. 26 U.S.C.A. § 3304(a)(9)(B). Pursuant to this federal legislation, a similar provision was incorporated in the New Jersey act. N.J.S.A. 43:21-21(b).

In December 1971 the Secretary of Labor approved an Interstate Arrangement for Combining Employment and Wages drafted by the 50-State Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies. 36 Fed. Reg. 24992. This Arrangement to which New Jersey Department of Labor and Industry is a party provides in pertinent part:

(a) Transfer of employment and wages -- payment of benefits. The paying State [here New Jersey] shall request the transfer of a Combined-Wage Claimant's employment and wages in all States during its base period, and shall determine his entitlement to benefits * * * under the provisions of its law based on employment and wages in the paying State, if any, and all such employment and wages transferred to it hereunder. The paying State shall apply all the provisions of its law to each determination made hereunder, even if the Combined-Wage Claimant has no earnings in covered employment in that State, except that the paying State may not determine an issue which has previously been adjudicated by a transferring State [here Pennsylvania]. [20 C.F.R. § 616.8(a); emphasis supplied]

Another section of that Regulation further states:

To the extent that any protest, request for redetermination or appeal involves a dispute as to the coverage of the employing unit or services in a transferring State, or otherwise involves the amount of employment and wages , the protest, request for redetermination or appeal shall be decided by the transferring State in accordance with its law. [20 C.F.R. § 616.8(d)(3); emphasis supplied]

Pursuant to the foregoing legislation and regulations, the State of Pennsylvania, the transferring state, reported to the State of New Jersey, the paying state, that the claimant had earned $789 over a 13-week period of employment in 1975 with a firm known as Light 'N Lovely. The New Jersey agency combined these earnings with New Jersey earnings

of $518 over a five-week period and thus concluded that claimant did not qualify for benefits under the statutory requirement of either 20 base weeks or a minimum of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.