Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Susan E. Cawley, No. B-138378.
Susan E. Cawley, petitioner, for herself.
Michael Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 406]
This is an appeal by Susan E. Cawley (Claimant) from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d), and Section 203(b) of the Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note (Emergency Act).
Claimant had been employed as a substitute teacher by the Coatesville Area School District from March through mid-June, 1976. After school closed for the summer, she applied for unemployment compensation benefits and stated on the Bureau of Employment Security's Form UC-990*fn1 that she was available for work during the summer and that she would accept an offer of summer employment, but that she expected to return to work as a teacher in the fall and would quit any summer job at that time. The Bureau of Employment Security found that she was not available for suitable work and denied her benefits.
Claimant appealed to the referee and continued to make weekly visits to the local Bureau office in the hope of finding a summer position.
The referee's hearing was scheduled for September 14, 1976 at 10 o'clock A.M., but Claimant was unable to attend because she had been re-hired by the Coatesville Area School District and was teaching her class at that hour. She notified the referee of that fact well before September 14, but she did not specifically request a continuance. The referee proceeded with the hearing, at which he accepted into evidence the Bureau's records and Claimant's letter, but took no testimony. He affirmed the Bureau's determination.
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 407]
Claimant appealed to the Board, and wrote a letter stating that her last substitute teacher assignment was for three and one-half months with no contract and that she had been "dropped" from the staff in June, "with no promise of any employment in September." (Emphasis in original.) The Board affirmed on the grounds that Claimant had an implied agreement with her employer to return to her teaching position in September, 1976, and that she was therefore ineligible for benefits under both of the aforementioned statutory provisions.
Section 401(d) of the Law requires, as a condition of eligibility for benefits, that an employee be able to work and available for suitable work.
In Dingel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 484, 322 ...