Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

ERIE RESISTOR CORP. v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW (01/20/53)

January 20, 1953

ERIE RESISTOR CORP.
v.
UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW



COUNSEL

Henry A. MacDonald and Frederick F. Jones of Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, Erie, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Dithrich

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 431]

DITHRICH, Judge.

This is an appeal by the employer, Erie Resistor Corporation, from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversing the decision of the referee and allowing benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 751, to claimant, Lois A. Quiggle, for the week ending October 9, 1951.

Among others, the Board made the following findings of fact:

'1. The claimant was last employed by the Erie Resistor Corporation for approximately 11 months, her last day of work being July 20, 1951, on which date she was laid off.

[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 432]

'2. Claimant, who customarily worked on the third shift, was recalled to work by the Erie Resistor Corporation on October 2, 1951 and offered employment on the first shift [7 a. m. to 3:30 p. m.]. Claimant did not accept the offer because of the necessity of caring for her small child during the hours of the first shift, but she stated that she was willing to accept work on either the second or third shifts. She was told that no such work was available and she continued unemployed.

'3. Claimant's husband worked the first shift and was in a position to care for their child upon returning from work. Had work on the second shift been available to the claimant, she could have arranged for a neighbor to care for her child during the short period at the change of shifts when both she and her husband would be away from home. Claimant's husband would have been present throughout the entire third shift to care for the child.'

Appellant contends that under sections 402(a)*fn1 and 401(d)*fn2 of the Law, 43 P.S. §§ 802(a), 801(d), claimant is ineligible for compensation because her unemployment was due to her failure, without 'good cause,' to accept suitable ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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