From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rubin Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 16, 1960
165 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)

Opinion

September 14, 1960.

November 16, 1960.

Unemployment Compensation — Availability for work — Daytime student — Labor market for part time employment in area involved — Shift from day to night classes — Unemployment Compensation Law.

In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, who was a day student in a school and had classes from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Thursday, contended that there was a labor market for part time employment in the city area in question (but had himself indicated in his statement to the local employment office that he had looked for work but had found no jobs available during the claim period involved), and that his school curriculum was so flexible that he could shift from day to night classes if he were referred to a daytime job, it was Held that claimant was unavailable for work within the meaning of § 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law and that he was properly denied benefits.

Before WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., and GUNTHER, J., absent).

Appeal, No. 204, Oct. T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-56471, in re claim of Allen Morris Rubin. Decision affirmed.

Allen Miles Ruben, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.


Argued September 14, 1960.


This is another unemployment compensation case in which the claimant, a day student enrolled at McCarrie School of Mechanical Dentistry, seeks to obtain unemployment compensation to assist him in obtaining an education.

Claimant had classes from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and had paid his tuition in full for the term. The bureau, the referee and the board disallowed the claim. The case is ruled by Lovich Unemployment Compensation Case, 189 Pa. Super. 529, 151 A.2d 647, and Gulbin Unemployment Compensation Case, 191 Pa. Super. 646, 159 A.2d 37, and many other cases too numerous to cite.

Appellant argues that his case is distinguished from the above because of his allegation that there was a labor market for part time employment in the area in question (Philadelphia) that would correspond to the hours he was available for work. Unfortunately for appellant, he answered this argument in his "Summary of Interview" statement to the local employment office wherein he stated: "I have looked for work in newspapers but due to off season there were no jobs. . . ."

Since the appellant himself indicated that employment possibilities that would correspond to the hours he was available for work were practically nonexistent in his local labor market, during the claim period involved, he cannot be considered generally available for work. By placing a restriction or conditions upon his availability, appellant has so seriously limited his possibilities for employment as to render him "unavailable" within the meaning of § 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 801(d), and, therefore, has detached himself from the active labor market.

Appellant's argument that his school curriculum is so flexible that he could shift from day to night classes, if he is referred to a daytime job, and therefore should be considered available for full time employment, is answered by Judge GUNTHER in the Majoris Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Super. 269, 270, 271, 162 A.2d 86, in the following language: "Assuming that claimant could change his school schedule to be available for a regular or ordinary day-time work shift, it does not follow that he would have been available for changing shifts which are so common today. Thus, in one week, claimant may be required to work a morning shift, and the following week, he may be required to work an afternoon or night shift."

We therefore hold that claimant was unavailable within the meaning of § 401(d) of the law and must be deemed removed from the bona fide active labor market.

Decision affirmed.


Summaries of

Rubin Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 16, 1960
165 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)
Case details for

Rubin Unempl. Compensation Case

Case Details

Full title:Rubin Unemployment Compensation Case

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 16, 1960

Citations

165 A.2d 101 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1960)
165 A.2d 101

Citing Cases

Woodley v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

In this case, however, we do not believe that the presumption has been rebutted sufficiently. Rubin…

Wiley Unempl. Compensation Case

In the absence of proof that appellant refused suitable employment, he should not be denied benefits. Rubin…