From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jones Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 18, 1959
149 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)

Opinion

March 9, 1959.

March 18, 1959.

Unemployment compensation — Refusal of valid offer of employment — Absence of compelling reason for refusal — Unavailability for work — Unemployment Compensation Law.

In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, previously employed as a bindery worker, refused a referral for work as a spinner-trainee, because she wanted to await recall by her former employer, it was Held that claimant was disqualified for benefits because (a) she had refused a valid offer of employment without showing any urgent or compelling reason for her refusal (§ 402(a)) of the Unemployment Compensation Law; and (b) because her reason for remaining unemployed had made her unavailable for work (§ 401(d)).

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 2, March T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-46367, in re claim of Helen R. Jones. Decision affirmed.

Helen R. Jones, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.


Argued March 9, 1959.


The claim of Helen R. Jones for unemployment compensation was denied by the bureau, the referee and the board.

Her last employment was by the Eureka Specialty Company, Scranton, Pennsylvania, as a bindery worker, on the third shift, five nights a week. She was being paid $1.51 per hour. Her last day of work was June 27, 1957, when the night shift was eliminated.

On September 20, 1957, she was offered a referral for work as a spinner-trainee at the Sauquoit Silk Company, Scranton. She would receive $1.13 an hour, on the third shift, six nights a week. The claimant refused the referral because she wanted to await recall by her former employer. There was no definite date for such recall.

Such action by the claimant disqualifies her for benefits in that, she refused a valid offer of employment without showing any urgent or compelling reason for her refusal. Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P.L. 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(a); Wojciechowski Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Super. 362, 142 A.2d 756 (1958).

And as the board found, her reason for remaining unemployed detached her from the labor market and made her unavailable for work within the meaning of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 801(d). The claimant rendered herself unavailable for work by conditions and limitations as to employment. Rex Unemployment Compensation Case, 183 Pa. Super. 442, 132 A.2d 363 (1957).

Decision affirmed.


Summaries of

Jones Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Mar 18, 1959
149 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)
Case details for

Jones Unempl. Compensation Case

Case Details

Full title:Jones Unemployment Compensation Case

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 18, 1959

Citations

149 A.2d 654 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)
149 A.2d 654

Citing Cases

Trella v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

It is also clear that refusing to accept referral to a job because of the expectation of possible recall to…