IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles D. Williams, :

: No. 2363 C.D. 2014

Petitioner : Submitted: August 14, 2015

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION 

BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: October 20, 2015

Charles D. Williams (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the 

December 3, 2014, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 

(UCBR), which denied Claimant’s request for reconsideration of the UCBR’s 

October 20, 2014, decision affirming the decision of a referee to deny Claimant 

unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. We reverse and remand.

Claimant’s parents owned John R. Williams Landscaping, Inc. 

(UCBR’s Findings of Fact, No. 1.) After the death of Claimant’s parents, Claimant 

became the owner of the company and assumed 100% of the stock interest. (Id., 

Nos. 2-4.) In 2007, Claimant transferred 100% of his stock ownership in the 

company to his wife. (Id., No. 4.) Since that time, Claimant’s wife has been the 
2

owner and president of the company. (Id., No. 5.) She is also the vice president, 

secretary, and treasurer of the company. (Id., No. 8.)

Claimant is no longer an owner or officer of the company. (Id., Nos. 

6-7.) He has no control over the hiring or firing of employees and has no checksigning privileges. (Id., Nos. 9-10.) Claimant pays unemployment taxes on his 

salary. (Id., No. 11.) Claimant continues to work for the company and supervises 

the field work. (Id., No. 12.)

In February 2014, Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits, which the 

local service center denied. Claimant appealed to the referee, who held a hearing 

at which Claimant and his wife testified. The referee found that although 

Claimant’s wife was the president of the company, Claimant held 100% stock 

ownership of the company. (Ref.’s Decision at 2.) The referee concluded that 

Claimant was self-employed and, thus, ineligible for UC benefits under section 

402(h) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 (Id.)

Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which remanded the matter to the 

referee for a supplemental hearing on the self-employment issue. At the remand 

hearing, Claimant introduced evidence that in February 2007, he transferred 100% 

of his stock interest in the company to his wife. (See N.T., 6/19/14, at 2 & Ex. C1.)

 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.

§802(h). Section 402(h) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for 

any week in which he or she “is engaged in self-employment.” 43 P.S. §802(h).
3

On October 20, 2014, the UCBR affirmed the referee’s decision, 

albeit on different grounds. The UCBR determined that Claimant was not selfemployed under section 402(h) of the Law because he had no ownership interest in 

the company. (UCBR’s Decision at 2.) The UCBR determined, however, that

Claimant was employed by his wife. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, No. 13.) 

Therefore, the UCBR concluded that Claimant’s wages were excluded from his 

base-year salary under section 4(l)(4)(5) of the Law.2 (UCBR’s Decision at 2.) 

Claimant filed a timely petition for reconsideration, which the UCBR denied on 

December 3, 2014. Claimant now petitions for review of that decision.

Preliminary, we note that Claimant did not file his petition for review 

within 30 days of the UCBR’s decision on the merits. He did, however, timely 

appeal from the UCBR’s order denying his petition for reconsideration. Therefore, 

our review is limited to the UCBR’s denial of reconsideration.3 See Fleeher v. 

Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 850 A.2d 34, 36 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2004); Muehleisen v. State Civil Service Commission, 443 A.2d 867, 869 

& n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982), aff’d, 461 A.2d 615 (Pa. 1983).

To determine whether good cause exists for the grant of 

reconsideration, “‘the [UCBR] must consider whether the party requesting 

 

2

Section 4(l)(4)(5) of the Law excludes from the definition of “employment” any

“[s]ervice performed by an individual in the employ of his son, daughter, or spouse.” 43 P.S. 

§753(l)(4)(5).

3 Our review of an administrative agency’s order denying reconsideration is limited to 

determining whether the agency abused its discretion. Fleeher v. Department of Transportation, 

Bureau of Driver Licensing, 850 A.2d 34, 36 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
4

reconsideration has presented new evidence or changed circumstances or whether 

[the UCBR] failed to consider relevant law.’” Laster v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 80 A.3d 831, 834 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (citation 

omitted). Before the UCBR can grant reconsideration, “‘there must appear of 

record some reason to support this exercise of discretion.’” Id. (citation omitted).

After reviewing Claimant’s petitions and the record in this case, we 

conclude that good cause existed for the grant of reconsideration because the 

UCBR failed to consider relevant law in rendering its October 20, 2014, decision. 

The UCBR found that Claimant’s wife has 100% stock ownership of the company, 

Claimant has no ownership interest in the company, and Claimant exercises no 

control or authority over corporate affairs. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 4, 6-7, 

9-10.) Despite these factual findings, the UCBR concluded, without citing any 

legal authority, that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under section 

4(l)(4)(5) of the Law because he worked for his wife. (See id., No. 13; UCBR’s 

Decision at 2.) Thus, it appears that the UCBR failed to consider Wedner v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 296 A.2d 792 (Pa. 1972), Moss v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 420 A.2d 1350 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1980), and Feltman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 325 A.2d 

322 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974), in deciding the merits of the case.

4

 For this reason, we 

conclude that the UCBR abused its discretion in denying Claimant’s request for 

reconsideration.

 

4 Wedner and its progeny address whether the UCBR may pierce the corporate veil of a 

family-owned corporation to deny UC benefits under section 4(l)(4)(5) of the Law.
5

Accordingly, we reverse the UCBR’s December 3, 2014, order and 

remand this matter to the UCBR to reconsider its October 20, 2014, decision in 

light of the relevant case law.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles D. Williams, :

: No. 2363 C.D. 2014

Petitioner : 

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20th day of October, 2015, we hereby reverse the 

December 3, 2014, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

(UCBR) and remand this matter to the UCBR for further proceedings consistent with 

the foregoing opinion. 

Jurisdiction relinquished.

___________________________________

ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Charles Williams, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2363 C.D. 2014

:

Unemployment Compensation : Submitted: August 14, 2015

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

CONCURRING OPINION

BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER FILED: October 20, 2015

I concur with the Majority’s reversal of the Order of the Unemployment 

Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) denying Charles Williams’ 

(Claimant) request for reconsideration and the remand of this matter to the Board 

for reconsideration of its October 20, 2014 Decision/Order. I write separately to 

draw the Board’s attention to the fact that it appears that the Board, in issuing its 

October 20, 2014 Decision/Order, did not resolve certain contradictions in the 

testimony and documentation in reaching its determination that Claimant was not 

the owner of the business known as John R. Williams Landscaping, Inc. (Williams 

Landscaping) and, therefore, not ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 
RCJ-2

402(h) of the UC Law (Law).

1

 Specifically, I note that the record shows the

following.

Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits in February 2014 listing Williams 

Landscaping as his employer. (Summary of Interview, R. Item 2.) The UC 

Service Center determined that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to 

Section 402(h) because he is self-employed. (Notice of Determination, R. Item 4.) 

Claimant appealed and at the first Referee hearing held in this matter on March 20, 

2014, Claimant testified that he was the “owner of the business,” that he had given 

his wife control of the company but stated that, because of his sister, Kathy’s 

attempts to acquire the business after his parents’ death, “our lawyer said, you 

know, just keep it in your name. But, she [wife][sic] 100 percent control of the 

business.” (Hr’g Tr. at 2, 6, March 20, 2014, R. Item 7.) Claimant testified further 

that “[a]s the owner, I just gave her 100 percent control,” “[o]n paper, I’m 

considered the owner of the business,” and “I own a piece of paper that is 100 

percent stock in it, but the stock is worth no value for this business.” (Hr’g Tr. at

2.) Claimant indicated that he had a copy of that stock certificate with him at the 

March 20, 2014 hearing. (Hr’g Tr. at 5.) However, that certificate was not entered 

into evidence. 

The record also contains an August 14, 2008 Referee’s Decision/Order

finding that Claimant was not ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(h) of 

 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 

802(h). Pursuant to Section 402(h), an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for any week in 

which he or she “is engaged in self-employment.” Id.
RCJ-3

the Law. (Claimant’s Petition for Appeal from Determination w/Attachments, 

Dated 3/3/2014, Ex. 3, R. Item 5.) Therein, the Referee found that Claimant “filed 

for benefits again in 2007 and 2008 and again informed the unemployment 

compensation authorities he owned the business but was not a corporate officer 

and did not make executive type decisions.” (Referee Decision, August 14, 2008, 

Findings of Fact ¶ 9.) 

The record contains a “Report by UC Tax Agent,” dated September 10, 

2009, which indicates that Claimant owns 100% of Williams Landscaping as of 

that date. (Employer Separation Information, R. Item 3.) Attached to Claimant’s 

appeal to the Board from the Referee’s initial Decision issued in this matter on 

March 25, 2014, is a copy of the Referee’s Decision that contains, at the bottom, 

the following handwritten comment: “LEGAL REASONS JUST SAY IM 

OWNER CAUSE OF KATHY.” (Claimant’s Petition for Appeal from Referee’s 

Decision/Order w/Attachments, Dated 4/7/2014, R. Item 10.)

The Board ordered a remand hearing to fully develop the record with respect 

to the issue of whether Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 

402(h) of the Law. (Remand Memo, Dated 5/9/14, R. Item 11.) At the remand 

hearing held before the Referee on June 19, 2014, Claimant appeared with counsel. 

Counsel contended that there was some erroneous information provided at the first 

hearing and entered into the record a document purporting to be a stock certificate 

transferring 100% ownership of Williams Landscaping from Claimant to his wife 

as of February 6, 2007. (Hr’g Tr. at 2, June 19, 2014, R. Item 14.) However, this 

stock certificate was not authenticated by Claimant or his wife. Instead, it was 
RCJ-4

Claimant’s counsel who “testified” that the certificate was “the original.” (Hr’g 

Tr. at 2.) Claimant only testified that he was not an owner, an officer, or a 

shareholder of the business. (Hr’g Tr. at 3.) However, Claimant’s own testimony 

at the first hearing, the August 14, 2008 Referee Decision/Order, the September 

10, 2009 “Report by UC Tax Agent,” and other record evidence contradicts that 

Claimant transferred ownership of the business to his wife in 2007. His testimony 

at the second hearing may establish that, as of June 2014, he was not owner or 

shareholder of the company, but there was no testimony then to establish when that 

status changed.

Given the state of this record, and the contradictions in the testimony and 

documentation, which become apparent after detailed review of the record, the 

Board’s reconsideration of its October 20, 2014 Decision/Order on remand must 

include, in addition to relevant case law, a review of the entire certified record. 

This will enable the Board to make findings and consider all of the material facts in 

reaching a conclusion of law as to whether Claimant is ineligible for UC benefits 

pursuant to Section 402(h) of the Law. 

________________________________

 RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge