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.

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

June 13, 1962

SEMANISIN UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 132, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-69052, in re claim of Mary Semanisin. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Edward A. Fatula, 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 304]

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, Mary Semanisin, was last employed by the Kennywood Park, Dequesne, Pennsylvania, as a cook, at $75 a week, on September 4, 1961. On September

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 30513]

, 1961, the local employment office offered her a referral to suitable employment with the Vienna Baking Company, Dequesne, pa., as a cook at $1.25 per hour. There was no question raised about salary. It was the prevailing rate. During her interview with the prospective employer she stated she was willing to accept the job for the winter but would return to work with her last employer in the spring, as a result of which, she was not hired.

She testified that she worked at Kennywood Park as a cook for the past fifteen summers; that she filed and received unemployment compensation benefits each winter; and this was the first referral she ever had.

The principal object of the unemployment compensation law is to alleviate economic distress in individual cases and to extend help to those unemployed through no fault of their own. Sound policy requires that a claimant, who refuses suitable employment, may remain eligible for benefits only where there is a necessitous and compelling reason for such refusal. Suska Unemployment Compensation Case, 166 Pa. Superior Ct. 293, 70 A.2d 397 (1950). There can be no such cause that does not rest on good faith. Dower Unemployment Compensation Case, 179 Pa. Superior Ct. 201, 115 A.2d 878 (1955).

In a long line of cases we have held that where a claimant so limits his willingness to work so that a proffered job is lost, good faith is negatived and he is ineligible for benefits under § 402(a). In Trabold Unemployment Compensation Case, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 485, 159 A.2d 272 (1960), where the claimant's willingness to work was limited to a recall by a former employer and this limitation resulted in a loss of the proffered job, we held that he was ineligible under § 402(a), in that his reason did not rest ...


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.