Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GEBALDO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/13/62)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 13, 1962

GEBALDO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.

Appeal, No. 93, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-67448, in re claim of Gertrude Gebaldo. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

William E. Duffield, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Watkins

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 302]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

In this unemployment compensation appeal the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, all concluded that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of § 402(a) of the law, 43 PS § 802(a).

The claimant, Gertrude Gebaldo, was last employed as a teller by the Second National Bank, Connellsville, Pennsylvania, at a salary of $275 a month, on February 28, 1961, at which time she had a valid separation. On June 13, 1961, the Pennsylvania State Employment Service offered the claimant a referral to a possible job opening as a bookkeeper with Mervis Furniture Co., Connellsville, Pennsylvania, at $200 a month. During her interview with the referral employer she advised him that she had an interview pending with another

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 303]

    employer and would call him back within "a couple of days", which she failed to do.

Her statement to a prospective employer that she had another interview pending indicated that she did not want the proffered job or, at least, wanted to await the result of the second interview before giving a definite answer. However, the second interview must not have proved fruitful and she neglected to call him back within "a couple of days" or at any time, but continued unemployed. This conduct was not consistent with the genuine desire to work and be self-supporting by being ready and willing to accept suitable employment as required by the law; and was not commensurate with the dictates of good faith without which there is no good cause for refusal of employment. D'Amato Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 76, 173 A.2d 680 (1961); Lorenzi Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 573, 180 A.2d 84 (1962).

Disposition

Decision affirmed.

19620613

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.