Appeals from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claims of Lois M. Stryker, No. B-118247 and No. B-118246.
Lois M. Stryker, appellant, for herself.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 430]
This opinion involves two separate appeals by Lois M. Stryker from adverse orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board). We have consolidated them for decision in order to avoid repetition.
Appellant was last employed by Electol, Inc., as an assembler at an hourly rate of $2. On November 21, 1972, her employment was terminated after one week
[ 14 Pa. Commw. Page 431]
on the job. She then reopened an existing claim for unemployment compensation benefits (originally filed in May of 1972) and was found to be eligible to receive benefits.
Our scope of review in this type of case is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973).
Appellant first appeals a referee's determination, subsequently affirmed by the Board, that she was ineligible to receive benefits for the work week ending December 7, 1972 because she was not "available for suitable work" at this time, as required by Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The referee found the following as a fact: "2. During the period December 5, through December 9, 1972, claimant was out of her labor market area, visiting in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, on personal business." A review of the record reveals that this finding is adequately supported by testimony given by the appellant at the hearing before the referee. It is, therefore, binding on us. See Tritex Sportswear, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 335, 315 A.2d 322 (1974).
It is established law in this state that each unemployment compensation week stands on a separate and individual basis, and a claimant must demonstrate his availability for work during that particular week in order to be entitled to compensation. Orkwis Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 141, 181 A.2d 703 (1962). ...