Opinion
Argued November 17, 1980
December 17, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Presumption — Full-time student — Availability for work — Economic support obligations — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897.
1. There is a presumption in workmen's compensation law that full-time students are unavailable for work; but where special circumstances exist, this presumption might be rebutted. [416]
2. Where an unemployment compensation claimant who is a full-time student presents no evidence of economic support obligations and has not clearly expressed an intention to leave school if work became available, he has not rebutted his presumption of unavailability for work and is ineligible for benefits under Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897. [417]
Argued November 17, 1980, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., CRAIG and PALLADINO, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2672 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of John W. Rich, No. B-178548.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
John W. Rich, petitioner, for himself.
Stephen B. Lipson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which sustained a referee's decision denying benefits to the claimant on the grounds that he was not able and available for work within the meaning of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. 801(d). We affirm.
The claimant in this case is 39 years old, is single, has no dependents, and is a full-time college student residing in Claredon, Pennsylvania. In August of 1979 claimant left his job of 15 years as a machine operator for Allegheny Buffalo China, Inc. under circumstances which did not disqualify him for benefits, and applied for unemployment compensation benefits. Subsequently he enrolled as a full-time college student at Jamestown Community College in Jamestown, New York, a city some 30 miles from his home in Claredon. In September of 1979 the Bureau of Employment Security denied claimant's application for unemployment compensation benefits. On appeal a referee sustained the denial of benefits concluding that the claimant was primarily a student rather than a worker committed to the work force, and that he therefore did not satisfy the work availability requirements specified in Section 401(d) of the Law. This decision was affirmed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
The issue in this case is whether, considering the facts as a whole, the claimant is realistically attached to the labor force and therefore eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. It has long been the position of this Court that there is a presumption in the law that full-time students are unavailable for work. Claim of Wright, 25 Pa. Commw. 522, 360 A.2d 842 (1976); Woodley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commw. 8, 317 A.2d 897 (1974). We have also held, however, that where special circumstances exist this presumption might be rebutted. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Siene, 24 Pa. Commw. 430, 357 A.2d 228 (1976). In the case of Reardon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 30 Pa. Commw. 139, 373 A.2d 146 (1977), we listed some of the factors to be considered by the court in deciding whether the presumption is rebutted. There we stated:
Employment history, and particularly the duration of full time employment; economic requirements, especially those related to support obligations, and good faith efforts to obtain unconditional full time employment have been considered. It has been declared that while unemployment compensation benefits were never intended to subsidize college students, a claimant with a long employment record, who has a family requiring his support and who is required by necessity to leave school to continue employment if the two conflict, and whose bona fide effort to obtain any full time employment available is beyond question should not be denied benefits.
Id. at 143-4, 373 A.2d at 149 (Citations and footnotes omitted). Based on the evidence in the record we do not believe that the claimant has rebutted the presumption that he is primarily a full-time student. Although claimant has a long employment history he does not have the other characteristics we have traditionally considered to be important in determining if a student is primarily attached to the labor force. In cases where the presumption has been overcome there has usually been evidence of important economic support obligations. See, e.g., Wiley Unemployment Compensation Case, 195 Pa. Super. 256, 171 A.2d 810 (1961), Reardon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra. The claimant, however, has no such obligations. We have also placed a heavy emphasis on clearly expressed intention to leave school if work became available. See, e.g., Graham v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commw. 445, 322 A.2d 807 (1974), Ettorre v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commw. 315, 413 A.2d 6 (1980). The record in the present case shows, however, that the claimant did not testify he was willing to leave school for work, but simply stated that he wanted to do both. Based on a consideration of the factors expressed in Reardon, we conclude that the claimant has not rebutted his presumption of unavailability, and hence has not satisfied the availability requirements of Section 401(d) of the Law.
When questioned about his willingness to leave school for work the claimant testified as follows:
QR: Are you willing to quit school for full-time employment?
AC: Well, see, that's a predicament you get into, I guess, if whether you want me to quit school in order to draw unemployment.
QR: It's not what I want, sir. It's what you're primary objective is, your education or your job.
AC: Both.
QR: Okay. Did you ever talk to the school about changing your school hours so you could get a job?
AC: No, I didn't.
We need not consider claimant's additional claim that he was prejudiced by the referee's failure to question him about his back condition. Since claimant's medical condition was not relevant to the issue before the referee, no error was committed. Accordingly, we enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated December 10, 1979, Decision No. B-178548, denying benefits to John W. Rich is affirmed.