Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Catherine C. Rodgers, No. B-146740.
Mark B. Frost, with him Mendel, Schwartz & Bock, Ltd., for petitioners.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him James Bradley, Assistant Attorney General, and Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. Judge Craig dissents.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 553]
This is an appeal by Catherine C. Rodgers (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law) for willful misconduct.
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 554]
The claimant was employed by the City of Philadelphia as an executive secretary for eight years. Under the conditions of her employment, she was required to reside in the City of Philadelphia, and she resigned her employment on April 21, 1977 in lieu of being discharged for violating the residency requirement. The Board observed that
[w]hile the claimant was registered for voting purposes at her son's residence in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the municipal authorities determined that she spent a substantial portion of her time commuting from her permanent residence in Richboro, Pennsylvania.
The claimant insists before this Court that her legal residence was at her son's apartment in a duplex structure which she owned in the City of Philadelphia. In support of her position, she alleges that her bills were sent to this Philadelphia address, that taxes were paid by her incident to her ownership of the premises, and that she commuted to work daily from this address. It was only when a younger son became ill, she contends, that she moved temporarily to Richboro to take care of him. This issue, of course, is one of credibility, and it was within the Board's discretion to resolve it against the claimant. See In Re: Claim of Wright, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 360 A.2d 842 (1976). It was properly decided here against the claimant.
The claimant suggests alternatively that she maintained two residences and that the one in Philadelphia satisfied the residency requirement for city employment. As we said, however, in McCarthy v. Philadelphia Civil Service Commission, 19 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 383, 387, 339 A.2d 634, 636 (1975), aff'd, 424 U.S. 645 (1976): "It is well settled that a person can have more than one residence, but only one 'legal residence' or domicile." And in that case we held
[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 555]
that the Civil Service Commission had properly interpreted the very residency provision in issue here as ...