Opinion
March 10, 1952.
July 17, 1952.
Unemployment compensation — Availability for work — Test — Voluntary enrollment in training course — Appellate review — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. A claimant must be "able to work and available for work" to qualify for benefits under § 401 of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
2. The test of availability requires claimant at all times to be ready, able, and willing to accept suitable employment, temporary or full time.
3. Examination of the record by the appellate court in a contest concerning availability must ordinarily be limited to the determination whether the board's findings of fact are sustained by the evidence.
4. Where it appeared that claimant had been discharged from his employment and had received benefits for several weeks; that he then voluntarily enrolled and attended a training course with a company, to qualify for a position with it; and that he attended classes five days each week and made no attempts to obtain employment; it was Held that claimant was properly refused benefits for the period of his training.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.
Appeal, No. 32, March T., 1952, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated August 21, 1951, Appeal No. B-I-B-7-J-124, Decision No. B-26546, in re claim of Fred C. Schornstein. Decision affirmed.
Fred C. Schornstein, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Robert E. Woodside, Attorney General, for appellee.
Argued March 10, 1952.
Claimant appeals from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board which denied him benefits. The decision must be affirmed.
Claimant was discharged from his employment and received benefits for some nine weeks. He then voluntarily enrolled and attended a training course with Underwood Corporation in Connecticut, to qualify for a position with it. He attended classes five days each week, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. He now claims benefits for the period of his training, although he testified that he made no attempts to obtain employment. In fact, he clearly showed that he had no intention of doing so, and had voluntarily taken himself out of the labor market.
"Q. Did you do any training? A. In the Research Laboratory. Q. What type of work? A. Sales training. Q. When did you start? A. June 11, 1951. Q. Are you still training there? A. Yes. Q. How long will this training take? A. If I meet all the requirements, I will be assigned to a territory on September 1st. Q. Tell me, what are your hours of training? A. You are supposed to start at 9 a.m. and quit at 5 p.m. Q. Is that five or six days a week? A. Five days. Q. You are confining your efforts with the Underwood Corporation to become employed with them? A. Yes, to take myself off the rolls. Q. After you went to Hartford did you look for any other job? A. The answer to that — absolutely no . . ."
A claimant must be "able to work and available for work" to qualify for benefits under section 401 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 801. "`Our examination of the record in contests concerning availability must ordinarily be limited to the determination whether the board's findings of fact are sustained by the evidence.'": Shellhammer Unemployment Compensation Case, 162 Pa. Super. 327, 328, 57 A.2d 439. "The test of availability requires claimant at all times to be ready, able, and willing to accept suitable employment, temporary or full time . . .": Mattey Unemployment Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Super. 36, 41, 42, 63 A.2d 429. The appellant did not meet this test. What was stated in the cited case is particularly appropriate here: "It cannot be said that he was `actually and currently attached to the labor force' . . . The Act does not contemplate `a compensated vacation from work,' . . . nor should it become `an invitation to a compensated rest' . . ."
Decision affirmed.