Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Barbara Louderback, No. B-159353, In Re: Claim of Barbara Louderback, No. B-164912 and In Re: Claim of Reva Kaplan, No. B-159359.
Leon W. Silverman, with him Dennis L. Friedman, for appellants.
Michael D. Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gary J. Marini, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellees.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr. This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSalle.
[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 502]
Here consolidated for our consideration are the appeals of petitioners (claimants), substitute teachers for the School District of Bristol Township (Bristol),
[ 48 Pa. Commw. Page 503]
from three separate orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), denying benefits for periods of summer vacation. We affirm.
Claimant, Reva Kaplan, had served Bristol as a substitute teacher for ten consecutive years prior to filing for unemployment compensation benefits on June 19, 1977. Adequate evidence appears of record to support the Board's conclusion that an implied agreement existed between the claimant and Bristol with regard to future substitute teaching, making benefits unavailable pursuant to Section 203(b) of the Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note. The record likewise supports the Board's finding that claimant was not realistically attached to the labor force and therefore unavailable for suitable work pursuant to 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).
Since the autumn of 1967, claimant has served as a substitute teacher for Bristol. She completed a form during the summer of 1977 indicating her intention to continue that ongoing relationship during the following school year, in anticipation of which her name was placed on the substitute teacher list for the following year.
The instant case is indistinguishable from and therefore controlled by the recent case of Ellman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 179, 407 A.2d 478 (1979). If anything, we find the present factual setting, with its demonstration of a long-standing relationship, even more compelling. In the absence of some evidence to indicate the ...