Appeal, No. 168, Oct. T., 1955, by claimant, from decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated February 4, 1955, No. B-38584, in re claim of Orlando R. Campbell. Order affirmed.
Orlando R. Campbell, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ.
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 75]
This is the second time Orlando R. Campbell has appealed to this Court from the Board of Review's denial of his claim for unemployment compensation on the basis of his separation from employment with the North American Refractories Company.
[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 76]
The claimant was laid off by his employer due to lack of work at the establishment. Before he was recalled to work he became 65 years of age, voluntarily retired and went on pension. There was no work available for him at the time he retired, but later, on July 16, 1953, work became available and had he not retired he would have been called back to work by his former employer on that date.
The previous case (175 Pa. Superior Ct. 592, 106 A.2d 687) involved claims for compensation for weeks prior to July 16, 1953. We there held that although the claimant's voluntary retirement was a leaving "without good cause," nevertheless his unemployment during the period then in question was not "due to" his retirement, but rather to the absence of available work, and therefore he was entitled to compensation during those weeks.
In the appeal now before us compensation subsequent to July 16, 1953 is involved. As we suggested in our previous opinion the claimant's unemployment after that date was not due to his being laid off but was due to his voluntary retirement.
The claimant now contends, however, that the work which he would have been offered had he not retired would not have been suitable for him. Thus the claimant, after voluntarily cutting himself off from recall by his last employer, is attempting to question the suitability of the work he would have been offered had he not resigned.
If this would be a proper subject of inquiry, it would doubtlessly be followed by an inquiry into whether the employer would have modified the duties or offered the claimant other work had the employe indicated at that time that the proffered work ...