Page 316

              Title 56 IDES RULES Part 2765
R-119 (05/11)
2) Example: The individual is held to be ineligible for benefits by the claims adjudicator, Referee, Board of
Review or court as a result of his discharge for misconduct by Company A, a liable, contributing employer.
Thereafter, he returns to work and performs services for Company B, a liable, contributing employer, for three
days per week for three weeks and is then laid off. However, he does earn an amount in excess of his weekly
benefit amount in each of these weeks. He then performs services for Company C for one week and earns in
excess of his weekly benefit amount before being laid off for lack of work and claims benefits for the week
ending March 6, 1993. The individual is eligible for benefits because he met the requalification requirements of
Section 602 of the Act. No employer will be the chargeable employer of this individual for the week ending
March 6, 1993 because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work and because, after his
discharge, there was no single employer which paid him an amount equal to or in excess of his weekly benefit
amount in each of four weeks. However, if this individual later returns to work for Company B and performs
services for an additional 21 days before being laid off, Company B could be the chargeable employer with
respect to any weeks which occur subsequent to this separation.
3) Example: The individual is discharged from Company A, files a claim for benefits for the week ending January
23, 1993 and is determined to be ineligible under Section 602 of the Act. He then returns to work for Company
A and earns in excess of his weekly benefit amount in each of four weeks. He is then laid off by Company A.
Thereafter, he performs services for Company B for less than 30 days before being laid off. Company A will be
this individual's chargeable employer with respect to any weeks subsequent to this second separation from it
because it was the individual's single employer following his discharge for misconduct, is an employer under
the Act and paid the individual an amount necessary to requalify for benefits. If this individual had performed
services for Company B for 30 days, then it would be this individual's chargeable employer.
4) Example: Assume the same facts as in subsection (c)(3) except that, after performing services 30 days for
Company B, the individual was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. In this case, no employer
will be the chargeable employer with respect to this subsequent separation because Company B cannot be the
chargeable employer of an individual if it discharged him for misconduct connected with his work.
5) Example: Assume the same facts as in subsection (c)(3) except that Company B, which employed the individual
for 30 days, is not an employer under the Act. In this case, no employer will be charged as a result of any
benefits paid to this individual after his second separation (unless a later chargeable employer is found for
subsequent weeks). This is because, even though the individual requalified for benefits by earning an amount
equal to or in excess of his weekly benefit amount in each of four weeks from Company A, he was subsequently
employed for 30 days by Company B, an organization which is not subject to the Act.
6) Example: An individual is employed by Company A for several months and performs services for Company A
for at least 30 days before being laid off for lack of work. The individual does not file a claim for benefits
immediately but goes on vacation. When he returns from vacation, Company A offers the individual a suitable
job which he refuses without good cause. However, during that same week, he is hired by Company B where he
then performs services for less than 30 days but earns in excess of his weekly benefit amount in each of four
weeks. When he is laid off by Company B, the individual files a claim for benefits for the week ending January
23, 1993. He is not subject to disqualification for his refusal of work from Company A because he has had
sufficient earnings from Company B to purge any possible disqualification. Company A will not be charged for
benefit charges which result from payments to this individual because the individual refused the Company's
offer of suitable work without good cause. Company B is not the employer which paid the claimant earnings
which allowed him to requalify because the individual was never disqualified. Company B did not employ this
individual for at least 30 days. Therefore, in this case, no employer will be the chargeable employer for the
week ending January 23, 1993 and thereafter until such time as there is an employer which meets the
requirements of the Act to be chargeable.
d) If no employer meets the requirements of this Subpart to be the chargeable employer for the second of two
consecutive benefit years, then no employer will be the chargeable employer for that second benefit year (effective
with benefit years beginning on or after September 22, 1992).