Michael C. Rainone, Philadelphia, for appellant.
Roland M. Morgan, Associate Counsel, Harrisburg, William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Atty. Gen., Charles J. Margiotti, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j. and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 158]
Claimant, known in the trade as a 'single-needle sewing machine operator,' was last employed on a
[ 168 Pa. Super. Page 159]
piecework basis at an average of 80 cents per hour by the Wagman Dress Shop, 811 N. 19th Street, Philadelphia. After working for a period of one month she was laid off June 22, 1949, due to lack of work, without any understanding that she would be recalled.
On July 10, 1949, the Pennsylvania Employment Office referred her to a job with the Vogue Novelty Company, 12th and Brown Streets, Philadelphia. The referral called for work of the same general type which claimant had been doing at her last place of employment. She refused to accept the proffered employment because, as she testified, the proprieter of the Vogue Novelty Company told her that she would be paid twelve to fifteen cents a dozen for work on children's dresses, and she thought that she could not do more than a dozen of the dresses in an hour. Although she did not try the job to see what she could have earned, in appealing from the Bureau's decision denying her compensation she gave as her reason for refusing the referral, 'I was not getting enough money to make a living. I worked in union shops in both places where I was laid off and I must get union wages.' That the Vogue Novelty Company was not a union shop -- assuming that to be a fact -- would not be 'good cause' for her refusal to accept employment there. Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 356 Pa. 43, 50 A.2d 336.
In her testimony before the referee she was asked:
'* * * what type of work would you have accepted? A. Operation on dress shirts only.
'Q. At what rate of pay? A. $35.00 a week, 8 hours a day.' She later stated that she would take anything if it was a 'paying job and suitable.'
But it is quite evident that she considered any job paying less than $35 a week not a 'paying' job and therefore not 'suitable.' The Board found as a fact that she '* * * would not accept work paying ...