Appeal, No. 26, Feb. T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-59743, in re claim of Eleanore Sledziowski. Decision affirmed.
Wilfrid L. Jones, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 338]
OPINION BY MONTGOMERY, J.
Claimant, Eleanore Sledziowski, has appealed from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which refused compensation to her on the ground that she was disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), by reason of terminating her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant was last employed as a saleswoman by the Youth Center, a dress shop in the Borough of Edwardsville, Pa. Her last day of work was April 15, 1960. Her hours of employment were 5 to 9 p.m. daily except Sunday. These hours had been specially established
[ 195 Pa. Super. Page 339]
for her convenience, so that she might use the family car as her means of transportation, since her husband used it during the day for travel to his place of employment.
The board found that claimant was absent from work April 16th (Easter Saturday) to April 21, 1960, without reporting to her employer, that continuing work was available to claimant had she desired to remain employed, and that adequate public transportation was available to the claimant. Bus service existed at Upper Askam which is one mile from her home.
The board declined to accept her contention that she was discharged because of her refusal to come to work at 10 a.m. on April 16th as allegedly requested by her employer. The employer denied that such a request had been made, and further denied she had advised it of any reason for her not reporting after April 15, at any hour or for any reason. Claimant contended further that lack of adequate transportation was the reason for her refusal.
Although claimant testified the family car was not available on April 16th, she admits it was available on April 19th and thereafter. However, she did not report for work and according to the testimony of Joseph Cutler, representing the employer, claimant, nevertheless, told him on April 21st that it was still unavailable and that she would call again when it was available and she was able to come back to work. In this connection it is noted that she said she was ...