Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PAMELA KIRK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/07/80)

decided: July 7, 1980.

PAMELA KIRK, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Pamela Kirk, No. B-171497.

COUNSEL

David L. Hill, for petitioner.

Elsa D. Newman, Assistant Attorney General, with her Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish and Judges Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.

Author: Crumlish

[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 553]

The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits to Pamela Kirk (Claimant) finding that she failed to accept suitable work without good cause pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. ยง 802(a). After considering her appeal, we affirm.

On January 29, 1979, Kirk was referred by the Bureau, now Office, of Employment Security to a job as clerk typist with the Ward Candy and/or Ward Chocolate Company. She accepted the referral, but failed to report for the scheduled interview. Claimant's excuse is that she became lost, but made repeated attempts by telephone and local queries to locate the company. She did not contact Ward for either directions or alternative interview arrangements, but did call the employment

[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 554]

    office later that day to explain her predicament.

We are asked here to determine only whether claimant demonstrated "good cause" for failing to pursue a referral to suitable employment.

We have often prescribed the necessary standards for evaluating good cause. A claimant seeking benefits must at all times be ready, willing and able to accept suitable work, and have substantive and reasonable grounds for failing to accept or effectively pursue proffered employment. Morrison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 47 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 211, 407 A.2d 486 (1979); Gasper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 466, 399 A.2d 1144 (1979). See also Wolford v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 43, 384 A.2d 1035 (1978). Although this burden clearly rests upon the claimant, Veneski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 154, 370 A.2d 382 (1977), the credibility of witnesses, weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inference drawn therefrom is for the Board. Kanouse v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 9 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 188, 192, 305 A.2d 782, 784 (1973).

The Board made three pertinent findings: (1) Kirk accepted a referral to employment; (2) she did not report for the scheduled interview because she was unable to locate the company; and (3) she did not seek directional guidance from the prospective employer. These findings are fully supported by the record and therefore binding upon this Court absent fraud or mistakes of law. Morrison v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra, at 213 n. 3, 407 A.2d at 487 n. 3.

Kirk now charges that the Board erroneously failed to rely on the instruction of Ennis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.