Opinion
November 13, 1957.
January 21, 1958.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Necessitous and compelling reason — Marriage — Collective bargaining agreement — Provision against retention of married women — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. Section 701 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended (which provides, in part, that no agreement by an employe to waive, release, or commute his rights to compensation, or any other rights under this act, shall be valid) proscribes agreements to relinquish rights or benefits which the employe otherwise would be entitled to under the law; it has no application to legitimate conditions of the employment, which the employer and the employe (individually or through a collective bargaining agent) agree shall govern the employment status.
2. A provision in a union-company collective bargaining agreement that no married women will be hired and no single women who subsequently marry shall be retained beyond a period of thirty days from the date of marriage is not illegal under § 701 of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
3. Where such a provision is contained in a collective bargaining agreement and the employe subsequently marries, she thereby terminates her employment and voluntarily elects to place herself in an unemployed status for a reason which the Unemployment Compensation Law does not recognize as necessitous and compelling.
4. In this case it was Held that claimant was properly denied benefits under § 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended. Appeals — Statement of questions involved.
5. Questions not covered in the statement of questions involved will not be considered on appeal.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ. (GUNTHER, J., absent).
Appeal, No. 63, April T., 1957, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, November 21, 1956, Decision No. B-43133, in re claim of Sophie Czarnecki. Decision affirmed.
Albert C. Shapira, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Milton W. Lamproplos, with him Smith, Buchanan, Ingersoll, Rodewald Eckert, for intervening appellees.
Argued November 13, 1957.
Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was denied benefits under section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of 1936, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802 (b), and has appealed.
It was stipulated by counsel for the respective parties that the decision in this case shall be considered as the decision of the Court in the following appeals: Mildred Pavlick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 117, April Term, 1957; Mary B. Merritts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 126, April Term, 1957; Dorothy Mrena v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 127, April Term, 1957; Margaret Konesky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. 146. April Term, 1957.
Claimant was married on July 23, 1955, and thereby terminated her employment with her employer, the Aluminum Cooking Utensil Company, New Kensington, Pennsylvania, because the union-company collective bargaining agreement, negotiated by the union with which she was affiliated, provided: "No married women will be hired, and no single women who subsequently marry shall be retained beyond a period of thirty (30) days from the date of marriage." Claimant was clearly disqualified. Means Unemployment Compensation Case, 177 Pa. Super. 410, 110 A.2d 886; Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Super. 542, 119 A.2d 650, allocatur refused 180 Pa. Super. xxx.
It is argued on behalf of claimant that this provision in the collective bargaining agreement is illegal under section 701 of the Law, 43 P. S. § 861. The section provides in part: "No agreement by an employe to waive, release, or commute his rights to compensation, or any other rights under this act, shall be valid." It is obvious that the section proscribes agreements to relinquish rights or benefits which the employe otherwise would be entitled to under the Law. It has no application to legitimate conditions of the employment, such as the instant provision in the collective bargaining agreement, which the employer and the employe (individually or through a collective bargaining agent) agree shall govern the employment status. The collective bargaining agreement was binding on claimant. When she married she thereby terminated her employment and voluntarily elected to place herself in an unemployed status for a reason which the Law does not recognize as necessitous and compelling. Elliott Unemployment Compensation Case, supra, 180 Pa. Super. 542, 545, 119 A.2d 650.
Questions not covered in the statement of questions involved will not be considered on this appeal. Blue Anchor Overall Co. v. Pennsylvania Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company, 385 Pa. 394, 402, 123 A.2d 413.
The decision is affirmed.