Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert Jenkins, No. B-164498.
Edward L. McCandless, Jr., of Steinberg & Girsh, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Edward G. Biester, Jr., Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 302]
Robert Jenkins (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing further appeal of a referee's decision terminating his unemployment benefits for refusing suitable work, under Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(a).
The claimant had been employed as a truck driver and mechanic at $4.50 per hour but had been separated from that employment on April 14, 1978, and was receiving unemployment compensation. On June 5, 1978, he was referred to a prospective new employer, Automatic Rolls of Pennsylvania (employer), and thereafter completed an application for employment. What followed was succinctly stated by the referee:
[ 49 Pa. Commw. Page 3034]
. On June 19, 1978 the claimant was offered employment as a General Worker, at $4.00 an hour, with Automatic Rolls of Pennsylvania, a newly formed company, with the assurance that he would be considered for advancement to a position such as a Bakery Machine Mechanic, at $5.00 an hour, when business conditions warranted the employer increasing his labor force, which was expected to occur in the near future.
5. Claimant indicated his acceptance of the General Worker position offered by Automatic Rolls of Pennsylvania, but failed to report for work as instructed on June 19, 1978. Claimant did not notify the employer as to the cause of his not reporting.
6. Claimant informed the Local Office that he was dissatisfied with the type of work offered, and felt the employment was temporary in nature.
7. The position offered was within the claimant's capabilities and paid the prevailing wage rate for that type of ...