Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Sarah H. Trexler, No. B-127367.
Louis M. Shucker, with him James Breslauer, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Kramer.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 182]
This is an appeal by Sarah H. Trexler (claimant) from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated August 22, 1975, which affirmed a referee's order denying her claim for unemployment compensation benefits.
The material facts of this case are not in dispute. The claimant was last employed by J. B. Liebman, Reading, Pennsylvania, as an accounting clerk at the hourly rate of $2.65. On September 20, 1974, she was discharged from that company's employ and she received unemployment compensation benefits for two months thereafter, during which time she was available for suitable work, but only between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., her availability being limited because of her inability to find a reliable person to care for her 12-month-old child except during the period indicated. She actively sought employment within these time limits by registering with a local employment agency as well as with the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau).
On or about November 25, 1974, the Bureau referred the claimant to Gilbert Associates (Gilbert) for the position of accounting clerk at $350-$550 per month. On November 27, she reported for an interview
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 183]
with Gilbert and indicated her interest in the job. She was informed, however, that she would occasionally be required to work overtime, i.e, after 5:00 P.M. On or about December 5, after unsuccessfully attempting to make suitable child-care arrangements for the extra hours which might be required, she informed Gilbert that she could not take the job. The Board held that, although the claimant's limited availability did not disqualify her for benefits under Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Act), 43 P.S. § 801(d), she had refused without good cause to accept suitable employment and, therefore, was ineligible for continued benefits, payment of such being prohibited under Section 402(a) of the Act,*fn2 43 P.S. § 802(a). The claimant then appealed to this Court.
The scope of our review in unemployment compensation cases is, of course, limited to questions of law and absent fraud to a determination as to whether or not the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 17 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 281, 330 A.2d 886 (1975). We are called upon here to determine, therefore, whether or not as a matter of law the claimant was offered "suitable work" and, if she was, whether
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 184]
or not her parental duty to care for her child was "good cause" ...