From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hauman v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 30, 1980
421 A.2d 533 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)

Opinion

Argued September 12, 1980

October 30, 1980.

Unemployment compensation — Availability for work — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Leaving employment area.

1. An unemployed person who is not actually and currently attached to the labor market and thus not available for suitable work is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, and a person who absents himself from the area in which he asserts that he is available for work cannot be considered to be actually attached to the labor force and is ineligible for benefits. [424]

Argued September 12, 1980, before Judges MENCER, CRAIG and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 1200 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of John E. Hauman, No. B-171976.

Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.

John E. Hauman, petitioner, for himself.

William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.


This is an appeal by John E. Hauman (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits for the weeks ending January 27, February 3, 10 and 17, 1979. The Board affirmed the referee's determination that the claimant was not available for suitable work during that period and was, therefore, ineligible for benefits by force of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Session, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 801 (d).

It is undisputed that during three of claim weeks here in issue the claimant was in the state of Florida. Until December 29, 1978, the claimant was employed as a carpenter by the Dick Corporation in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The record also shows that he applied for benefits on January 14, 1979. The referee and the Board found that the claimant on January 29, 1979, left his home in Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania, and went to Florida. The claimant allegedly went to Florida in search of work; although he had no pre-arranged job interview there. He returned to Beaver Falls on February 16, 1979.

To be eligible for unemployment benefits a claimant must be available for suitable work and be attached to the labor market. E.g., Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commw. 310, 392 A.2d 918 (1978). To be "available for suitable work," the claimant must be actually and currently attached to the labor force. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Molitoris, 24 Pa. Commw. 360, 356 A.2d 863 (1976).

It is well settled that a person who absents himself from the vicinity in which he has declared himself available for work is not actually attached to the labor force, and is therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits Otto v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commw. 516, 333 A.2d 231 (1975); Stryker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commw. 429, 322 A.2d 737 (1974); Stanek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa. Commw. 351, 295 A.2d 198 (1972); Friel Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Super. 362, 75 A.2d 7 (1950).

Upon the principle established by the above cases, we must affirm the Board's order as to the weeks ending February 3, 10 and 17, 1979. However, as to the week ending January 27, 1979, we must reverse for the obvious reason that the claimant did not depart for Florida until two days after that week ended.

ORDER

AND NOW, the 30th day of October, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-171976 is affirmed in part and reversed in part. The denial of benefits for the weeks ending February 3, 10 and 17, 1979, is affirmed. The denial of benefits for the week ending January 27, 1979, is reversed.


Summaries of

Hauman v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Oct 30, 1980
421 A.2d 533 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
Case details for

Hauman v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Case Details

Full title:John E. Hauman, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 30, 1980

Citations

421 A.2d 533 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
421 A.2d 533

Citing Cases

Robinson v. Commonwealth

To be eligible for unemployment benefits a claimant must be actually available for suitable work and…

Humanic v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Orkwis Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Super. 141, 181 A.2d 703 (1962). A person who absents himself…