James Craig Kuhn, Jr., and Arnold D. Wilner of Wilner, Wilner & Kuhn, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Charles C. Hewitt and W. Gordon Rauch of Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, for intervenor-appellee, Stackpole Carbon Co.
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.
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 419]
These appeals by Regina H. Hanna (No. 156 April Term, 1952) and Rita D. Azzato (No. 160 April Term, 1952) were argued together and one opinion will decide both cases. Both appealed for themselves and on behalf of other claimants from decisions of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits on the ground that claimants had refused to accept suitable referred work in violation of the Unemployment Compensation Law, § 402(a), 43 P.S. § 802(a)*fn1
At the outset, it should be stated that appellant stands upon the proposition that the Board erred as a matter of law in refusing compensation and in finding that the offered work was suitable within the meaning
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 420]
of the Law, § 4(t), 43 P.S. § 753(t). The proposition runs counter to In re Fuller Unemployment Compensation Case, 159 Pa. Super. 74, 46 A.2d 510; Hassey Unemployment Compensation Case, 162 Pa. Super. 14, 56 A.2d 400, and other cases, and we repeat that an issue relating to the suitability of offered employment raises a question of fact. 'Moreover, where the Board's decision is against the party upon whom rests the burden of proof the question on appellate review is whether the Board's findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and its order, and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence; unless the answer is in the negative, the order must be affirmed'. Hogan Unemployment Compensation Case, 169 Pa. Super. 554, 559, 83 A.2d 386, 389. Where there is conflicting testimony the Board is charged with the duty of resolving the differences, to determine the credibility of witnesses, to weigh the testimony, and to draw reasonable inferences from it. On appellate review the testimony is read in the light most favorable to the party for whom the Board has found, giving that party the benefit of every inference which can be logically and reasonably drawn from it. Stillman Unemployment Compensation Case, 161 Pa. Super. 569, 56 A.2d 380.
I. Mrs. Hanna was employed by Stackpole Carbon Company at St. Marys until June 27, 1951, when she was laid off for lack of work. She was paid unemployment benefits for 20 weeks, and on November 15, 1951, she was offered employment at Sylvania Electric Products, Inc., at Emporium. There was no work available for married women in St. Marys at that time. She refused the referral, alleging that the traveling distance was excessive and that riding in a car early in the morning produced illness. Prior to 1945 she had worked
[ 172 Pa. Super. Page 421]
for the same company in Emporium for ...