Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary I. MacDonald, No. B-120526.
Mary I. MacDonald, appellant, for herself.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 496]
Mary I. MacDonald (appellant) was employed as a temporary secretary by Manpower, an employment agency, from sometime in 1969 until September 1973. During this period appellant, at Manpower's direction, worked at temporary assignments with Westinghouse Electric Corporation (Westinghouse). She became unemployed because the position she was holding was filled by a Westinghouse employee.
On November 2, 1973, appellant received in the mail a note from Manpower, dated October 31, 1973, requesting her to perform services at Westinghouse for a four-week period commencing November 5, 1973. On the same day she received an additional note, also dated October 31, 1973, from a Mr. Scorgie, a Westinghouse official, expressing the gratitude of himself and his fellow workers for appellant's former services. The note also expressed surprise at the fact that appellant had not received further assignments at Westinghouse since her release. After reading both letters, appellant mistakenly accepted Mr. Scorgie's letter as an authoritative rejection of the Manpower assignment, and she therefore failed to appear on the requested date.
On November 13, 1973, the Bureau of Employment Security denied appellant benefits for the week ending November 10, 1973,*fn1 pursuant to Sections 401(d) and 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L.  2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 801(d), 802(a). Upon appeal and
[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 497]
after a hearing, referee modified the Bureau's determination and on December 11, 1973, pursuant to Section 401(d), ruled the appellant ineligible for benefits for the week ending November 10, 1973.*fn2 The referee rejected the Bureau's 402(a) determination on the grounds that the employer had not complied with the requirements of the Department's Regulation 307.*fn3 The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed. We affirm.
Our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, to a determination as to whether the Board's findings (in this case, the referee's findings adopted by the Board) are supported by the evidence. Questions of credibility and the weight to be given evidence are for the Board. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973). In the case before us we find that the referee and the Board have both erred as to questions of law. However, we do find that the referee and the Board have reached the correct result for incorrect reasons.
Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law 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: ...