Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Natalie Riff, No. B-172828.
Arthur D. Rabelow, Artzt & Rabelow Assoc., for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 218]
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming
[ 51 Pa. Commw. Page 219]
a decision of the referee denying benefits for the compensable week ending March 10, 1979 to the petitioner (Claimant) on the ground that she was not available for work within the meaning of Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d). We affirm.
Section 401(d) of the Law reads in relevant part:
Compensation shall be payable to any employe who is or becomes unemployed, and who --
(d) Is able to work and available for suitable work. . . .
The facts are not in dispute. Claimant was laid off from work by her former employer on February 9, 1979. She filed her application for unemployment compensation benefits with the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau)*fn1 on March 5, 1979. Claimant stated on her "Summary of Interview" form:
I would accept full-time work only in the [northeast section of Philadelphia], since travelling time would just be too many hours, since I do have responsibilities at home. Therefore, I would only accept part-time work if ...