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.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA v. STANLEY KOZINSKY (04/09/75)

decided: April 9, 1975.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, APPELLEE,
v.
STANLEY KOZINSKY, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Stanley Kozinsky, No. B-121888.

COUNSEL

Robert L. Keogh, for appellant.

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

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

Author: Wilkinson

[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 287]

The Bureau of Employment Security, the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review ruled claimant-appellant ineligible for further benefits under Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(a), which provides, in part:

"An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --

[ 18 Pa. Commw. Page 288]

"(a) In which his unemployment is due to failure, without good cause, . . . to accept suitable work when offered to him by the employment office or by any employer. . . ."

Claimant had been employed for many years in the field of "natural gas appliance conversion and maintenance" with his last level of compensation from $350.00 to $375.00 per week. The nature of his work had required extensive travel at home and abroad to Europe and Australia. Claimant's last day of employment was December 15, 1972. On June 10, 1973, he applied for unemployment compensation benefits which he collected for nineteen weeks.

On October 19, 1973, claimant was referred to a maintenance job with a local school district at a pay rate of $3.25 per hour. He reported for the interview on October 23, 1973, and was informed at that time that the job was basically janitorial maintenance work, and that it also entailed driving a school bus twice a day. Claimant was instructed to return home and think about the job.

On the day following the interview with the school district, October 24, 1973, claimant wrote, dated and signed a "Summary of Interview" form on which he stated the following:

"Reported for interview with T.E. School dist. Employment discussed. Not in line with life time scope of employment. During time of interview time to think over possibilities of ...


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.