If you paid enough money into the unemployment compensation system and worked enough in the past year and are currently looking for work, you may be able to file for unemployment insurance.
In Pennsylvania, if you get severance pay, it may offset your unemployment insurance. In simple terms, if you get severance pay, you will get less unemployment compensation and may, in fact, get no unemployment insurance money if your severance is generous enough. Get A Free Consultation. Many employers offer paid vacation time.
If you continue to work and do not take all your vacations and then leave your job, your employer may grant you the amount you should have been paid. In Pennsylvania, if your job loss is permanent, your unemployment benefits are not impacted by vacation pay.
Some jobs require your employer to give you a specific amount of time of notice before firing you or laying you off. If a plant closes or a business goes out of operation, employers may not be able to give you this notice.
In other cases, business owners want to terminate the employer-employee relationship for some other reason without giving due notice. When employers do not want to wait or cannot wait, they can pay in lieu of notice, meaning they can give employees wages instead of giving them notice. In Pennsylvania, pay in lieu of notice can impact your unemployment benefits.
If you have lost your job and are applying for unemployment and any other benefits, it is important to get the maximum benefits possible.
Being unemployed is stressful enough and you should not have to worry about paying the bills or paying for groceries at the same time. Unemployment compensation, severance and other benefits exist to help you. It's worth noting, however, that at least 27 states including California have relaxed the requirement for continued job search while collecting unemployment due to the global coronavirus pandemic. At time of publication, those collecting unemployment benefits in one of these 27 states are not required to look for work in order to remain compliant.
Personal Finance Budgeting. By Eric Feigenbaum Updated May 10, Permanent Separation From Job. Video of the Day. Layoff Start Date. Impact of Severance Pay.
The contributions into the vacation fund, as stated above, are wages for unemployment insurance purposes and can be used to establish a claim, clear a lag, purge a disqualification, etc. This type of vacation pay is paid for a portion of a full vacation period. For example, an employer-employee agreement provides that all employees who have worked for one full year shall receive two weeks annual vacation pay.
Because this pay is for a portion of the year, it is called "pro rata" vacation pay. It should be noted that where pro rata vacation pay is paid upon termination. See discussion of P-B in item 2 above. When a State intermittent employee is laid off due to budgetary considerations and does not have a definite date of recall, the employee shall be considered to be on an indefinite layoff and terminated for purpose of Section Accordingly, vacation pay requested during such periods of layoff shall not be considered wages.
The above principle applies whenever there is an indefinite layoff as described above, irrespective of whether the intermittent employee has reached the hour limitation. Once it is determined that the vacation pay at issue is wages, then the question of the allocation of the vacation pay must be resolved.
The question of allocation is immaterial if the vacation pay is not considered wages. The Department has the final authority to determine the proper allocation of vacation pay after consideration of all the information obtained. This was the Board's findings in P-B This was a case involving a claimant who received pro rata vacation pay upon termination. In , the UI Code provided that all vacation payments were considered wages, whether or not the employee was terminated.
Section 19 of the collective bargaining agreement spelled out the conditions under which an employee became eligible for vacation pay. Included in Section 19 was the following provision:. This provision was specifically included in the contract because union members who receive pro rata vacation pay could not immediately receive unemployment insurance benefits upon layoff.
In rejecting the allocation provided in the contract, the Board said:. This is true because it is the statutory duty of the Department of Employment to determine a claimant's eligibility for benefits see Section of the Unemployment Insurance Code.
The State Legislature has seen fit to permit the Director of Employment to delegate certain of his responsibilities; for example, in Subsection b of Section of the Code, the Director of Employment may approve places other than a public employment office as a place where an unemployed individual may register for work. The legislature has not permitted the Department of Employment to delegate its authority to determine a claimant's eligibility for benefits.
Therefore, we conclude that regardless of the desires of an employer or the terms of a union contract, when an unemployed individual files a claim for unemployment benefits, the Department of Employment must determine the individual's eligibility for benefits and if such individual is in receipt of vacation pay or pro rata vacation pay at the time the claim is filed the Department of Employment is the only agency which may allocate such payments.
The Board went on to conclude that since other sections of the contract provided that the pro rata vacation pay was earned in a prior period and was realizable only upon termination, the only logical and reasonable allocation of such pay was to the period following termination.
While the Department has the final authority to decide on the allocation of vacation pay the Appeals Board, in PD has recognized that:. This right may be limited by a collective bargaining agreement, in which case, generally the allocation must be in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Vacation payments will be allocated to the extent possible to the period when a vacation actually is taken. As indicated above, subject to the limitations under a collective bargaining agreement, the employer has the inherent authority to designate vacation periods for its employees.
This is evidenced by contract language such as the following:. Vacation requests must be submitted to the employee's supervisor at least three weeks in advance for approval. Final approval rests with the Managing Director. Vacations are to be scheduled so as to cause the least inconvenience in a department and at times approved by the department foreman. Vacations are to be scheduled consistent with the efficient operations of the employer's business. If production schedules require, all vacations within a given department can be rescheduled by the employer.
In BD , the collective bargaining agreement provided that vacations are taken, with management's approval, between April 1 to December 31 of each year. On January 23, , the employer posted a notice for its employees stating there would be a two-week plant shutdown period between August 16, , and September 2, , and that it expected its employees to take their vacations at this time. On May 14, , the employer again posted a notice providing this same information.
In addition, the notice indicated that employees could request permission from their foreman to take time off at some other time. On August 15, , immediately prior to the shutdown, the claimant was issued a week's vacation pay. He refused to accept it as he wanted to take a week's vacation during the deer hunting season in October.
He had not previously made such a request. In holding the vacation pay was allocable to the week ending August 23, , and denying benefits for this period, the Board said:. In exercising the right in the instant case, the employer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in designating a vacation period for its employees.
Ample notice was given to its employees, including the claimant, that the shut down period necessitated by an electric power changeover, over which the employer had no control, would be the vacation period for them.
The employees who were not satisfied with this designation could use the grievance procedure set up between the employer and employees whereby an adjustment as to vacation period could be sought and adjudicated. A number of employees used this procedure and some were successful in obtaining the desired adjustment. The claimant herein did not seek to have an adjustment made in his particular case. We conclude on all of the facts herein that the tender of vacation pay to the claimant by the employer was tantamount to a payment thereof to him and was in an amount greater than that to which he would have been entitled as unemployment insurance benefits; therefore, he was not 'unemployed' during the calendar week August 17 through August 23, , when he was in receipt of such payment.
In BD , the collective bargaining agreement provided that preference on vacation dates would be given according to seniority ". However, beginning June 15, , the claimant left his work, due to a trade dispute, involving his union and remained on strike until October 2, , when the TD ended. The employer considered vacations suspended during the TD and did not issue vacation checks during this period. When the TD ended, the claimant was temporarily laid off and thereupon filed a claim for benefits.
At the time of the layoff, the claimant was paid two weeks vacation pay which the employer considered allocable to the period October 3, , through October 14, In sustaining the employer's position, the Board said:.
Although the claimant in this case, prior to the commencement of the trade dispute, had tentatively arranged for his vacation during the last two weeks of July, it is our conclusion that this tentative agreement was not binding on the employer, as the employer, having the basic right to set the period of vacation in the first place, had the right to change such period under altered circumstance.
On the other hand, it should be noted that where the facts indicate the employer's allocation is arbitrary, the Board has not supported the employer's position. In BD , the collective bargaining agreement provided that vacation periods extended from May to November of each year and the employer had the right to specify when vacations would be given.
The employer designated a certain week in July and another in October as the vacation weeks. The claimant took the scheduled week in July and, by arrangement with the employer, took his second week in August. In deciding the issue of allocation, the Board said:. In our opinion, this action can only be construed as allocating the vacation pay to that week. As the employer has already allocated the vacation pay due the claimant to a period in August, we find that the employer cannot now reallocate this pay to a period in October.
Where there is a collective bargaining agreement covering the payment of vacation pay, the allocation should normally be in accord with its provisions. A collective bargaining agreement will normally contain the specific time parameters during which an employee may request and be granted vacation time off.
In BD , the claimant was laid off due to lack of work on May 5, , and paid vacation pay for the vacation year which ended April 30, The claimant contended the vacation pay should be allocated to May and June of , when he took a three-week vacation without pay. The Board held that:. Since the computation date of the vacation year, April 24, , to April 30, , was April 30, , the vacation check can not be allocated to May and June The Board then concluded the vacation payment was allocable to the two-week period following termination.
At this time, the UI Code provided that vacation pay paid after termination was considered wages. While bearing in mind the employer's authority to designate vacation periods and the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement governing scheduling of vacations, to the extent possible, vacation payments should be allocated to the period the vacation is actually taken or scheduled to be taken.
It is only reasonable that vacation pay, i. In PD , which involved a DI claim, the claimant was disabled and filed for DI from April 13, , through August 12, , when he returned to work. Thereafter, he went on his scheduled four-week vacation beginning September 3, On June 10, , the employer made vacation payments to all its employees and, consequently, the Department allocated the payments to the period beginning June 10, In allocating the vacation payments to the period the vacation was actually taken in September, instead of the date the payments were made, the Board said:.
We do not consider the mere fact that the claimant was paid on June 10, , determinative of the allocation issue when all other employees were paid their vacation pay at the same time without regard to their vacation schedules. In our opinion the referee correctly allocated the vacation pay for the four weeks to the period when the claimant actually began his previously scheduled four-week vacation. It should be noted that, in the above case, the claimant's September vacation was taken with the employer's permission and was in accord with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement governing the scheduling of vacation periods.
As previously stated, to the extent possible, vacation payments should be allocated to the period the vacation is actually taken. However, in some cases, at the time vacation payments are made, a claimant may not have arranged a scheduled vacation as yet.
Under these circumstances, to what period should the allocation be made? In BD , the claimant was laid off due to lack of work in April and was thereafter unemployed for 10 weeks, and was recalled to work on July 6, , at which time he was paid two weeks vacation pay. The claimant filed a claim in April and the department allocated the vacation payment from June 28 through July 11, Under the collective bargaining agreement, the claimant could arrange to take a two-week vacation sometime during the month period between July 1, , through June 30, , or could continue to work without taking a vacation, in which case the vacation would be considered a bonus in lieu of vacation.
At the time he was paid the vacation payment, the claimant had not yet arranged a scheduled vacation for the next vacation year. In deciding on the allocation of the vacation payment, the Board said:. Under these circumstances, we hold that the vacation pay is allocable only to such period or periods as the claimant may actually take a vacation; if the claimant does not take a vacation, the payments will be considered as a bonus in lieu of vacation.
HOWEVER, although an individual may not have arranged a vacation period, it is possible that under the provisions of a collective bargaining agreement, the employer may have the option of designating a specific vacation period for its employees and may have done so. In PB , there was a four-week plant shutdown effective July 2, The employer exercised its option, under the contract, of requiring its employees to take their vacation during this shutdown period, except that the contract also provided that the employees could make a special request to take their vacation at some other time.
The Board held that the claimant's vacation pay was allocable to the shutdown period. The Board found that the claimant had not made any other arrangements with the employer and that the employer's designation of the shutdown period as the vacation period was fully in accord with the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.
In PD , the employer computed and paid vacation payments to all its employees on June 10, ; however, the employees were scheduled to take their vacation periods at various dates during the ensuing 12 months. The claimant in PD took his actual four weeks' vacation, as scheduled, in September The Board found that the fact the claimant was paid on June 10 was not determinative of the allocation issue. It then allocated the payment to the period the vacation was actually taken in September. This is a payment for vacation credit earned with no scheduled vacation time off taken.
It is, in effect, a bonus for working and not taking a vacation. Accordingly, since it is in the nature of a bonus, it is allocable to the period earned. An employer in a seasonal industry normally operates from March 1 through November 30 of each year.
0コメント