Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary Borman, No. B-117029.
Samuel M. Liebman, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr. and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 242]
This is an appeal filed by Mary Borman (Borman) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 243]
Board of Review (Board) dated May 10, 1973, in which the Board affirmed the adjudication of its referee and thereby denied unemployment compensation benefits to Borman.
Borman was employed for approximately four years by Trans World Airlines, Inc. (TWA) as a reservation sales agent at TWA's office in Center City, Philadelphia, and at the time in question was a resident of Barrington, New Jersey, a suburb of Camden. According to Borman's testimony, TWA was overstaffed and there was a slack period each January, which necessitated a reduction in the TWA work force whereby some of the full-time employes, such as Borman, were requested to work a four-day, 16-hour week, at $4.06 per hour. Borman's last day of full-time work was January 9, 1972, and she filed an application for benefits the next day. The record clearly states that although Borman was offered part-time work, she voluntarily requested to be furloughed. She returned to full-time employment with TWA on April 17, 1972.
The Bureau of Unemployment Security denied her claim on March 22, 1972, and she filed an interstate appeal after which a hearing was held before a Pennsylvania referee in Philadelphia, resulting in an adjudication by the referee on September 1, 1972, affirming the Bureau and denying benefits. Borman then appealed to the Board and was granted two additional hearings, after which the Board found that Borman was offered part-time work, which she did not accept because her automobile had been stolen on January 8, 1972, and she believed it would be uneconomical for her to work the shortened hours and pay for public transportation. The Board concluded that she should be denied benefits under the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) of The Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. § 802, which reads as follows: "An employe shall be ineligible for
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 244]
compensation for any week -- (b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, irrespective of whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act. . . ."
In her appeal to this Court, Borman contends that we should reverse the Board because (1) her automobile was stolen; (2) the pay for a partial week made it uneconomical for her to accept such work; (3) it was dangerous to commute by public transportation during off hours; and (4) she had an alleged physical disorder which would have been aggravated by a late night trip on public transportation. In essence, she argues that her reasons for refusing ...