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.

ARROWSMITH UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (04/18/63)

April 18, 1963

ARROWSMITH UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 40, Feb. T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-74571, in re claim of June B. Arrowsmith. Decision affirmed; reargument refused May 14, 1963.

COUNSEL

Ulric J. McHale, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

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

Author: Watkins

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 2]

OPINION BY WATKINS, J.

In this unemployment compensation case the claimant, June B. Arrowsmith, was denied benefits under the provisions of § 402(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(b)(2) and § 401(f) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 801(f). The Bureau denied benefits; the Referee granted benefits; and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed the referee and denied benefits.

The claimant had been employed as a secretary by the Hendrick Manufacturing Company, Carbondale, Pennsylvania, at $250 per month. She was married on July 15, 1961 and, at that time, her husband was unemployed but arranging to attend a G.I. school starting September 6, 1961 in Williamsport, Pennsylvania. On October 20, 1961 she voluntarily left her employment to join her husband in Williamsport. Continuing employment with the Hendrick Manufacturing Company was available to her.

While in Williamsport she obtained employment through the employment service as a secretary for the Tetley Tea Company, which job only lasted one week. She earned $68 in this employment and her last day of work was November 9, 1961.

The record discloses that she filed an application for benefits with the bureau prior to the application

[ 201 Pa. Super. Page 3]

    upon which this appeal is based but learned that she was ineligible. She testified: "I didn't know about the major support part." The exception provided in § 402(b)(2), supra, reads as follows:

"An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week... (2) In which his or her unemployment is due to leaving work (I) to accompany or to join his or her spouse in a new locality, or (II) because of a marital, filial or other domestic obligation or circumstance, whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act: Provided, however, That the provisions of this subsection (2) shall not be applicable if the employe during a substantial part of the six months either prior to such leaving or the time of filing either an application or claim for benefits was the sole or ...


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.