Has Anyone Beat This Unemployment Comp Ripoff

pmrPA

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-20-03 AT 12:04PM (CST)[/font][p][font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 06-20-03 AT 12:03 PM (CST)[/font]

Hi Everyone! I have just encountered a situation as follows: An employee
was let go at the end of May last year because her position was eliminated. She filed for UC (State of PA) and received 26 weeks of compensation (which we had to pay because we are a reimbursable employer) She also received 26 weeks of TEUC (which we did not have to pay). This took her into December. We have now received a Conditional Financial Determination indicating that she is conditionally eligible for 26 weeks of compensation and if she meets the criteria of providing pay stubs proving she received wages equaling six times her weekly rate in 2003 then she would be unconditionally eligible. If this happens, then her wages paid by us for the first two quarters of last year are credited to us and we will have to pay the largest percent of her UC. It is unlikely that she can produce the pay stubs. However, it is unbelievable that we can conceivably end up paying the highest percentage of 26 more weeks of UC merely because this individual worked enough to credit $1800 in wages in 2003!! It's almost "double jeopardy"!!! The people at the PA UC Center told me that it doesn't seem fair but it's the law.

Have any of you run into this situation? If so, did anyone successfully defend their position?

Thanks for any input.

Don D

It's not a matter of defending one's position since it is not arguable and not subject to review or appeals overturn unless there is deception involved. It's simply a combination of your state law and federal extensions signed by the president.

pmrPA

Thank you for your comment. PA has a new program for reimburseable employers wherein you pay a calculated price based on your payroll once a year and then you can request relief from charges. This happens so seldom here that it was decided not to pay up. I think we're going to be okay on this one. It doesn't appear as if the ee can come up with any pay stubs. It just seems ridiculous that an employer would have to pay twice on the same individual.