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.

WOJCIECHOWSKI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/11/58)

June 11, 1958

WOJCIECHOWSKI UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 63, Oct. T., 1958, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-45402, in re claim of Mary Wojciechowski. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

James Fitzcharles, III, for appellant.

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.

Author: Watkins

[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 363]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that disallowed compensation on the ground that the claimant did not have "good cause" for refusing the offer of work and

[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 364]

    was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of Section 402 (a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P.L. 2897, as amended, 43 PS ยง 802(a).

The claimant, Mary Wojciechowski, was last employed as a toy assembler by American Metal Specialties, Pendel, Pennsylvania, on November 16, 1956. On March 26, 1956 she was given a referral for employment as an assembler at the Kemline Manufacturing Company, Edgely, Pennsylvania. She was interviewed for the work by her prospective employer and advised to report for work on April 1, 1957. She failed to report.

Her testimony discloses that although she was offered a job as an assembler, the prospective employer had indicated to her that if there were insufficient assembly work she would be put on a riveting machine, with which she had no prior experience. She further testified that another reason for her failure to accept the job was the problem of transportation. "There is bus service but not for my convenience", was her testimony. She also said that the job was not steady and "I would have been laid off and have to go through the same nonsense I am going through now". As still another reason and this was submitted after the referee's decision, that her physician advised her against working "around any type of power driven machine".

It is the function of the Board of Review to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and to draw inferences therefrom: Tronieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 435, 65 A.2d 426 (1949). The facts as found by the board that she was offered employment as an assembler and did not report for work on April 1, 1957 because she did not think ...


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.