Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Anne M. Pleskovic, No. B-157291.
No appearance for appellant.
Elsa D. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 353]
Anne M. Pleskovic (claimant) appeals here from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Act).
The claimant is a substitute school teacher who has been employed by several school districts since February 1974. She applied for benefits at the close of the school term in the summer of 1977 and the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) found her ineligible because of the fact that she was not available for work within the meaning of Section 401(d) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 801(d). On appeal to the referee the Bureau's determination was affirmed with the modification that the claimant was also ineligible for benefits under Section 203(b) of the Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 (note).*fn2 The
[ 47 Pa. Commw. Page 354]
Board affirmed the referee's decision and this appeal followed.
The law is clear that school employees who have a reasonable expectation of returning to work at the end of a summer recess are "unavailable for suitable work" under Section 401(d) of the Act and are thus ineligible for benefits absent proof that there is some substantial reason to believe that they will not be recalled at the end of the recess. See Sude v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 533, 402 A.2d 1122 (1979). The pivotal question therefore is whether or not the claimant had a reasonable expectation of returning to her substitute teaching job in the fall.
The refree made the following crucial finding of fact:
3. The claimant's name remained on the school districts roster substitute list and both she and the school districts expected that she will resume employment as a substitute teacher when school begins in September 1977.
The Board accepted this finding and it is therefore binding on this Court if it is supported by substantial evidence. Scholtz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 ...