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.

NORMAN CARR v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (03/14/75)

decided: March 14, 1975.

NORMAN CARR, 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 Norman Carr, No. B-120915.

COUNSEL

Harold I. Goodman, with him Laurence M. Lavin, for appellant.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

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

Author: Bowman

[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 634]

Claimant, Norman Carr, had been employed as a cutting machine operator for approximately one year prior to May 11, 1973, although during that time he was subject to frequent layoffs. After the May 11, 1973 layoff, claimant enrolled in an automotive repair vocational

[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 635]

    training program conducted by Opportunities Industrialization Center, Inc. (OIC). This training lasted almost five months and required regular class attendance five days a week from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

On August 12, 1973, while still in training at OIC, claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits. Thereafter on September 13, 1973, the local Bureau of Employment Security disallowed claimant's application for benefits because he was "attending school full-time during the day." On appeal, the referee, on October 15, 1973, affirmed the Bureau's determination of ineligibility in that claimant was not genuinely and realistically attached to the labor market and not available for work and, therefore, did not comply with Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d) (Supp. 1974-1975).

Claimant then requested and was granted a further hearing to show that he was "in training with the approval of the secretary" and, therefore, not disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 401(d)(1), 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1). After the further hearing, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the earlier October 15, 1973 decision of the referee. This appeal followed.

The law is clear that a full-time student normally is not considered to be realistically and genuinely attached to the labor force and ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Woodley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 8, 317 A.2d 897 (1974); Ruben Unemployment Compensation Case, 193 Pa. Superior Ct. 604, 165 A.2d 101 (1960); Majoris Unemployment Compensation Case, 192 Pa. Superior Ct. 269, 162 A.2d 86 (1960). However, claimant here argues that his training program is covered under Section 401(d)(1), 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1), as "training with the approval of the secretary," and since he is otherwise

[ 17 Pa. Commw. Page 636]

    qualified for benefits, he was improperly denied benefits ...


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.