Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Leon B. Matthys, No. B-127008.
Judd F. Crosby, 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 Mencer. Judge Kramer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 475]
The facts in this case reveal that Leon B. Matthys (claimant) had been receiving unemployment compensation
[ 24 Pa. Commw. Page 476]
benefits due to his compensable separation from employment in 1974. In the spring of 1975, claimant, on his own initiative, responded to a newspaper advertisement seeking "full-time" or "part-time" school bus drivers. Claimant acquired the part-time job which involved one daily afternoon trip for which he was paid $7.75. Although he did inform his new employer of his availabilty for morning trips if he were needed, he did not directly seek the so-called "full-time" (4-hour-a-day) job because he wished to be free most mornings to attend job interviews.
The Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau), a referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denied benefits to claimant for a period from the week ending March 29, 1975, through the week ending May 10, 1975,*fn1 on the basis of claimant's alleged violation of 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), which provides in pertinent part:
"Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who --
"(d) Is able to work and available for suitable work. . . ."
Our scope of review here is limited to questions of law and, absent fraud, to a determination as to whether the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Pinger, 21 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 61, 342 A.2d 781 (1975).
We therefore turn to the record where we note that the Board, in adopting the opinion of the referee, set forth ...