Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case
1962 Pa. Super. LEXIS 834, 197 Pa. Super. 372, 178 A.2d 786 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The corporate entity may be disregarded to determine if a claimant is genuinely unemployed or is a self-employed person who exercises substantial control over their employment status and participated in the decision to be laid off.
Facts:
- The three appellants are family members who are officers in a family-owned wrecking business.
- Each appellant owns 40 shares of the company's 205 outstanding shares, giving them collective majority control of the corporation.
- During periods of insufficient work, the company's officers held meetings and used a majority vote to decide which members would be 'laid off'.
- The appellants were 'laid off' as a result of a majority vote of all stockholders because it was determined to be their respective turns.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellants filed claims for unemployment compensation benefits with the Bureau of Employment Security.
- The Bureau denied the claims on the grounds that the appellants were self-employed.
- The appellants appealed the Bureau's decision to a referee, who reversed the denial and found them entitled to benefits.
- The Board of Review then reversed the referee's decision, reinstating the denial of benefits.
- The appellants appealed the Board of Review's decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an individual who is a corporate officer and controlling shareholder, and who participates in a majority vote to be 'laid off' from the corporation due to insufficient work, qualify as 'unemployed' for the purpose of receiving unemployment compensation benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Montgomery, J.
No, an individual who is a corporate officer and controlling shareholder participating in the decision to be laid off is considered self-employed and does not qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. The court may ignore the corporate form to determine the true nature of the employment relationship. In this case, the appellants were not employees who were involuntarily unemployed, but rather self-employed persons whose business was temporarily unremunerative. Citing the precedent set in DePriest Unemployment Compensation Case, the court affirmed that because the appellants had sufficient control to lay themselves off, they were effectively self-employed and thus ineligible for benefits under the unemployment act.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that unemployment compensation is intended for workers who lose their jobs involuntarily, not for business owners who control their own employment. By 'piercing the corporate veil,' the court prevents owners of closely-held corporations from using the unemployment system as a subsidy during business downturns. This ruling emphasizes a substance-over-form approach, where the degree of control a person has over their employment is more important than their formal title as an 'employee.' Future cases involving claimants from small or family-owned businesses will likely hinge on the level of control the claimant exercised over the business and their role in the separation from employment.
