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.

ANNETTE M. TRELLA v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/27/73)

decided: September 27, 1973.

ANNETTE M. TRELLA, APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, in case of In Re: Claim of Annette Trella, No. B-113567.

COUNSEL

J. L. Lehman, with him Bell, Silberblatt & Swoope, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.

Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 306]

On September 1, 1971, Annette M. Trella (claimant) was separated from her job as a mounter with GTE

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 307]

Sylvania in Altoona because of lack of work, and she immediately began receiving unemployment compensation benefits. On March 17, 1972, she was allegedly offered a job referral involving electronic assembly work with Shortway Products in Clearfeld, which is in the same labor market area, but she refused to accept this position. She based her refusal on her belief that she was to be recalled to her former employment, although she indicated no definite date expected for such recall. Because of this refusal, the claimant was disqualified by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) from receiving any further benefits, and this disqualification was subsequently upheld by a referee and by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board).

Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. § 802(a), provides: "An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -- (a) in which his unemployment is due to failure, without good cause, either to apply for suitable work at such time and in such manner as the department may prescribe, or to accept suitable work when offered to him by the employment office or by any employer, irrespective of whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act. . . ."

It is clear that "[a] claimant who seeks benefits must at all times be ready and willing to accept suitable employment, and must have substantial and reasonable grounds for refusing offered work." Reed Unemployment Compensation Case, 182 Pa. Superior Ct. 428, 430, 128 A.2d 112, 114 (1956). See Kanouse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 188, 305 A.2d 782 (1973); Palmieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 181 A.2d 864 (1962). It is also clear that refusing to accept referral to a job because of the expectation

[ 10 Pa. Commw. Page 308]

    of possible recall to former employment is not an urgent or compelling reason for refusing a valid offer of suitable employment and is sufficient to disqualify a claimant for unemployment benefits. Kifus Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 224, 166 A.2d 83 (1960); Sparano Unemployment Compensation Case, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 349, 165 A.2d 131 (1960); Trabold Unemployment Compensation Case, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 485, 159 A.2d 272 (1960); Jones Unemployment Compensation Case, 188 Pa. Superior Ct. 545, 149 A.2d 654 (1959). In fact, the announced intention of a claimant to await and accept recall to former employment has been held to limit employability so as to render a claimant unavailable for the labor market in violation of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 801(d). Friedman Unemployment Compensation Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 640, 193 A.2d 676 (1963); Maribello Unemployment Compensation Case, 200 Pa. Superior Ct. 330, 188 A.2d 861 (1963); Gavlick Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 621, 179 A.2d 926 (1962).

It seems clear that, if the claimant here refused the referral to suitable work because she expected a recall to former employment, she was properly disqualified from receiving further benefits. She contends, however, that she was not in fact referred to the employment in question because she never received the usual ...


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.