Appeal, No. 420, Oct. T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-58844, in re claim of Martha S. Crompton. Decision affirmed.
Martha S. Crompton, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, Watkins, and Montgomery, JJ.
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 336]
Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was last employed by the Charles Bond Company, Philadelphia.
[ 194 Pa. Super. Page 337]
She had a valid separation therefrom on April 10, 1959.
Claimant filed an application for benefits, effective April 11, 1959, and she subsequently signed for, and received, unemployment compensation for thirty weeks without having had intervening employment.
When the claimant filed her last claim, on January 5, 1960, she was advised, as found by the Board of Review, of the provisions of section 4(w)(2) of the Act of December 17, 1959, P.L. 1893, 43 PS § 753(w)(2).*fn1
The board also found that claimant did not report to the local office within a sixty-day period following her apparance on January 5, 1960, that she did appear on April 5, 1960, and that she filed an application for benefits on April 12, 1960, to begin her second benefit year, effective April 11, 1960, without having had intervening employment.
The referee and the Board of Review concluded that claimant's application for benefits was invalid under the provision of section 4(w)(2).
Claimant's failure to comply with the provisions of section 4(w)(2) invalidates her application for benefits. Marinoff Unemployment Compensation Case, ...