Appeal, No. 183, Oct. T., 1954, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated February 3, 1954, decision No. B-35941, in re claim of Evelyn H. Shay. Decision vacated.
Evelyn H. Shay, Philadelphia, appellant, in propria persona.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Frank F. Truscott, Attorney General, for Unemployment Comp. Board of Review.
Paul Maloney, Philadelphia, for intervening appellee The Curtis Publishing Co.
Before Rhodes, P. J., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside and Ervin, JJ.
[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 295]
In this unemployment compensation case, after the compensation authorities denied benefits to the claimant, Evelyn H. Shay, she took this appeal.
The Board made, inter alia, the following findings of fact: "1. Claimant was last employed by the Curtis Publishing Company, Independence Square, Philadelphia 5, Pa., her last day of work being July 30, 1953. She had worked for this concern from November 27, 1950. 2. On July 19, 1951, claimant suffered injury to her left arm while at work, as a result of which she was absent from her job until October 1, 1951. 3. Claimant returned to work October 1, 1951 and was assigned to the job of counting magazine returns. She worked at this assignment until July 30, 1953, when she informed her supervisor that she was unable to continue with the work she was doing because it was causing pain to the left arm which had been injured. Claimant requested a part time job, but no part time work was available for her. She thereupon left her employment."
The Board held that claimant left her employment with good cause, stating "She was unable to continue doing the kind of work assigned to her because of the
[ 177 Pa. Super. Page 296]
pain caused to her left arm. This, we believe, was compelling and necessitous circumstance sufficient to constitute good cause for leaving her work." However, it denied benefits on the ground that claimant did not meet the eligibility requirement of section 401 (d) which provides: "Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who - (d) Is able to work and available for suitable work;". In discussing this phase of the case the Board stated: "... we have considered the fact that claimant was interested in obtaining only part time work, and therefore restricted her availability for suitable work. A claimant must be available for all suitable full time work which she does not have good cause to refuse. Inasmuch as claimant has excluded full time work simply because she prefers to work on a part time basis, we are forced to conclude that she has excluded suitable work without legal justification, and, accordingly, must be determined ineligible for benefits under the provisions of Section 401 (d) of the Law."
We are agreed that the board erred in denying benefits simply because it concluded that claimant wanted only part time work. In Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa. Superior Court 548, 45 A.2d 898, this Court stated at page 561: "Nor does our statute [Unemployment Compensation Law], differing in this respect from those of other states, require that the employe shall be available for full-time work, or for permanent, as distinguished from temporary employment. So long as the claimant is ready, willing and able to accept some substantial and suitable work he has met the statutory requirements. By the same token, the availability rule does not ...