Guth v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

7 Citing cases

  1. Foremsky v. Commonwealth

    496 A.2d 865 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 4 times
    In Foremsky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 90 Pa. Commw. 609, 496 A.2d 865 (1985), this Court agreed with the Board's determination of ineligibility where the Board found that the teacher had a reasonable assurance of returning to work following the holiday recess, despite the fact that his last working day had occurred twenty-two days prior to the holiday recess.

    Reasonable assurance is a matter to be determined by the Board based on relevant facts. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). In determining that Foremsky had a reasonable assurance of returning to work as a part-time substitute teacher following the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, the Board noted Foremsky's employment history as a per diem substitute during the past two academic years.

  2. DES MOINES IND. COMM. v. DEPT. OF JOB SERVICE

    376 N.W.2d 605 (Iowa 1985)   Cited 14 times

    Substitute teaching is by its nature inherently indefinite depending as it does on the occurrence of unforeseen vacancies in the teaching faculty; however, the employment possibilities of a substitute teacher remains reasonably assured so long as the claimant intends to do the work and the district expects to offer the work as it becomes available.Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 473 A.2d 228, 231 (1984). The legislature and the agency have treated school district employees differently than other employees. Unemployment benefits are not paid to teachers during the period between successive academic years or terms. Iowa Code § 96.4(5)(b).

  3. Unified School Dist. 500 v. Womack

    20 Kan. App. 2 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 4 times
    Concluding that each substitute teaching assignment did not constitute separate term of employment, and substitute teacher not deemed terminated or laid off at conclusion of each assignment if there is reasonable assurance that substitute will continue to be contacted for further assignments during school year

    " 'Substitute teaching is by its nature inherently indefinite depending as it does on the occurrence of unforeseen vacancies in the teaching faculty; however, the employment possibilities of a substitute teacher remains reasonably assured so long as the claimant intends to do the work and the district expects to offer the work as it becomes available.' Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa.Cmwlth. 79, 473 A.2d 228, 231 (1984)." 376 N.W.2d at 609.

  4. Armstrong School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    596 A.2d 1250 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1991)   Cited 2 times
    Holding that substitute teachers were not entitled to UC benefits for holiday recesses

    In Foremsky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 90 Pa. Commw. 609, 496 A.2d 865 (1985), this Court agreed with the Board's determination of ineligibility where the Board found that the teacher had a reasonable assurance of returning to work following the holiday recess, despite the fact that his last working day had occurred twenty-two days prior to the holiday recess. In Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984), the Court reiterated the interpretation of "reasonable assurance" as the phrase is used in Section 402.1(1) involving the availability of benefits for the period between two successive academic years or a similar period between two regular terms. A reasonable assurance requires "objective evidence of mutual commitment, more than a 'mere hope,' but less than a 'guarantee.

  5. Robinson v. Commonwealth

    119 Pa. Commw. 133 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1988)   Cited 12 times
    In Robinson, we concluded that the Board erred, because the claimant's eligibility should have been determined under Section 3 given that he was discharged on the basis of the off-duty conduct— i.e., unbecoming conduct—which had no connection to his work.

    Thus, this case must be remanded because an appellate court may not fill a factual void. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). Under Section 3, the employer must show (1) that the claimant's conduct was contrary to acceptable standards of behavior, and (2) that the conduct in question directly reflects upon claimant's ability to perform his assigned duties.

  6. Abel v. Commonwealth

    517 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1986)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that proposed change from full-time and longterm substitute teaching to placement on day-to-day substitute list was so drastic as to constitute necessitous and compelling reason to quit under Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)

    See also Neshaminy School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commw. 543, 548, 426 A.2d 1245, 1247 (1981) ("So long as the claimant desires and intends to continue substitute work and [the employer] expects to offer such work . . . the employment relationship of a substitute teacher remains viable.") (emphasis added) (quoting Louderback v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commw. 501, 504-05, 409 A.2d 1198, 1200 (1980)). In the present case, there is no real dispute that the "necessary mutuality," Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 84, 473 A.2d 228, 231 (1984), did not exist, because claimant resigned from her position and thereby severed any relationship she had prior thereto with the school district. Compare Foti v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commw. 128, 131-32, 430 A.2d 1043, 1045-46 (1981) (where claimant-teacher testified that he never intended to accept offer as per diem substitute, after having been employed as long-term substitute, and supported such testimony with evidence that showed he had applied for other jobs, held: claimant had sustained burden of showing "availability," and hence could not have had "reasonable assurance" for purposes of section 401.1(1)).

  7. Sheaffer v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

    92 Pa. Commw. 431 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1985)   Cited 11 times
    In Sheaffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review 92 Pa. Commw. 431, 499 A.2d 1121 (1985), the claimant, who had been employed by a company for a year and three months, was arrested and charged with burglary and theft.

    Clark, 80 Pa. Commw. at 517, 471 A.2d at 1311. This Court, when conducting its function of appellate review, may not fill a factual void. Guth v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 Pa. Commw. 79, 473 A.2d 228 (1984). Therefore, we vacate the Board's decision and order, and remand for specific findings of fact on the following: