Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

SCHORNSTEIN v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (07/17/52)

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


July 17, 1952

SCHORNSTEIN
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW

COUNSEL

Fred C. Schornstein, pro se.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert E. Woodside, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Dithrich, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Arnold

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 163]

ARNOLD, Judge.

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

[ 171 Pa. Super. Page 164]

    so, and had voluntarily taken himself out of the labor market.*fn1

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. ยง 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, 441. '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, 432. 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.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.