Appeal, No. 151, Oct. T., 1958, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, December 13, 1957, No. B-46219, in re claim of Betty H. Mollo. Decision affirmed.
Betty H. Mollo, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 87]
The claim of Betty H. Mollo for unemployment compensation was denied by the Bureau, the Referee, and the Board of Review upon the ground that her unemployment was due to voluntarily leaving work, wherefore she was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Act of 1936, P.L.  2897, 402(b), 43 P.S. 802(b). Claimant has appealed.
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 88]
Appellant had a valid separation from her employment with Roth Knitting Mills, 2025 East Boston Avenue, Philadelphia, and was thereafter referred to Sue Mattioli, 1101 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia. The Board of Review made, inter alia, the following findings of fact:
"2. Claimant was hired on August 5, 1957, and worked two hours. She worked 8 1/2 hours on August 6, 1957, and received $11.20 for the hours worked.
"3. On August 6, 1957, after working a total of ten and one-half hours for this employer, claimant voluntarily terminated her employment, contending that as a result of her inexperience in operating a twin stitch sewing machine she was not making sufficient wages."
Appellant's contention is apparently based upon the fact that her former employment was single knit mending with "gray" yarn on a time basis, whereas her employment with Sue Mattioli was twin knit mending with dyed yearn upon a piece work basis. The employer stated that appellant first said "that it was very nice work and she liked it very much", and later said "she would not be in the next day because she had made plans to go down to the shore but would be in Thursday". Appellant stated that she decided the work was too hard and the pay too low, and that she had notified the employer of that fact by telephone. However, the employer stated that appellant did not telephone but simply "never came back". The Board concluded that "such a short period of time does not constitute a fair trial of her job", and that appellant's termination of her employment was not based on cause of a compelling and necessitous nature.
In unemployment compensation cases, the credibility of witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable ...