Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Nancy Schwartz, No. B-169559.
Donald Marritz, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, with him William Kennedy, David Confer, Assistant Attorneys General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 589]
Nancy L. Schwartz has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming a referee's denial of benefits on the ground that she was not available for work as required by Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 50 Pa. Commw. Page 590]
Law (the Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d).
The appellant was employed as a guidance counselor's aide for the Gettysburg Area School District. In June 1978, at the end of the school year, she moved to Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania with her husband, a seminary student, who was enrolled in a summer training program there. While in Stroudsburg, the appellant registered for work at the local Bureau of Employment Security office and applied for unemployment compensation benefits, claiming that her job in Gettysburg had terminated and that no continued employment was available at the school where she worked. She received no job offers in the Stroudsburg area and at the end of the summer she returned to Gettysburg with her husband.
The Bureau determined that the appellant was ineligible for benefits because she was not available for work as required by Section 401(d) of the Law and because she had voluntarily left employment in Gettysburg without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature within the meaning of Section 402(b)(2) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). After two hearings at which the appellant appeared and testified without an attorney, a referee made the following findings:
2. After June 16, 1978, continued work was available to the claimant in that her position is a twelve month job but she voluntarily left her work to go with her husband to the Stroudsburg area.
4. Claimant during the period involved in this appeal was not available for permanent employment in that her stay in the Stroudsburg ...