Appeal, No. 45, April T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-46016-D, in re claim of Viola Daisy Davidson. Decision affirmed.
Eugene Charles Sloan, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 545]
This is claimant's second appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying her benefits under section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(b). On the prior appeal the record was remanded to the board for further hearing. Davidson Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 290, 293, 142 A.2d 459. The board referred the case to a referee for the purpose of taking additional testimony. Thereafter it vacated its prior decision and filed a new decision, again denying benefits to claimant. This appeal followed.
Claimant contends that the findings and conclusion of the board are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to the evidence, and that the board did not afford her an opportunity to be heard.
Admittedly, where the decision of the board is against the party upon whom rests the burden of proof, the question on appellate review is whether the findings of the board are consistent with each other and with its conclusion of law and its order, and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of the competent evidence Hogan Unemployment Compensation Case, 169 Pa. Superior Ct. 554, 559, 83 A.2d 386.
Claimant was last employed by the United States Steel Corporation at Clairton, Pennsylvania, as a chambermaid on a river boat, her last day of work being April 19, 1957. In performing her work claimant remained on a boat for ten days at a time after which she was relieved for a five-day period. She was compensated $20 a day for her services. Claimant lived at Malden, Centerville Borough, which was approximately thirty miles from her place of employment at Clairton. Claimant depended upon her daughter to drive her to work until her daughter became employed, on January 6, 1957, and was thus unable to furnish this transportation
[ 189 Pa. Super. Page 546]
to claimant. From then until she terminated her employment in April claimant apparently rode to work with other persons. Claimant had previously been on the "extra board" which may have made her employment irregular at times, but by the time she quit she was entitled by reason of seniority to work a regular schedule of ten days on and five days off. She reached this regular schedule two "hitches" before April 19th, the last day she worked.
It was the practice of the employer that on the fifth day off the employes such as claimant would call around 9 a.m. to receive orders as to which boat and at what time they ...