Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Francis J. Ennis, No. B-157019.
Paul A. Robb, with him, Lawrence D. Funsten, for petitioner.
David Confer, Assistant Attorney General, with him, William G. Dade, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Blatt and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt. This decision was reached prior to the death of President Judge Bowman. Judge DiSalle did not participate in the decision in this case.
Francis Ennis (claimant) appeals here from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) decision disallowing his appeal from a referee's determination that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits and has also received a fault overpayment.
The claimant, who is an unemployed accountant, responded to a newspaper advertisement for a full-time service technician with Kelly & Cohen (employer). He had done appliance-repair work in his home during his free time for approximately 19 years, and, although he indicated on his application that he desired full-time permanent work, he was initially hired on a part-time basis in October 1977. After approximately two weeks in this capacity, however, he signed a statement prepared by the employer to the effect that he would begin full-time work in December of 1977 and thereafter cease to do repair work in his home. Even so, he voluntarily terminated his employment in December rather than work full-time, and he then applied to the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) for benefits. He stated in his application for benefits that the nature of his employment with Kelly & Cohen was "seasonal part-time", and received benefits for four weeks. The Bureau then received a statement from the employer that the claimant had voluntarily terminated his employment, and it reversed its decision pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),*fn1 determining that the claimant had received a total of $560 in benefits to which he was not entitled and further that this money was recoupable under Section 804(a) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 874.
The claimant appealed the Bureau's decision and a hearing was held before a referee at which he and the employer presented testimony. He testified that he refused to accept the full-time work because he wanted to be available to seek employment in the accounting field where he had worked for 19 years. He further testified that he had indicated that his employment
with Kelly & Cohen was seasonal part-time because he did not want his employer to be responsible for his benefits. The referee affirmed the Bureau and the Board subsequently affirmed the referee. This appeal followed.
The claimant contends that he was justified in refusing full-time work as an appliance repairman because such work was not suitable under the meaning of Section 4(t) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 753(t) and that the Board erred by not making a specific finding as to the suitability of the proffered work.
In Mosley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 447, 451, 327 A.2d 199, 201 (1974) we held that Section 402(b)(1) of the Law "expressly requires the compensation authorities to consider the suitability of the job which a claimant has quit in determining whether a termination was for necessitous and compelling reasons." In Stockdill v. Unemployment ...