Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Wende Woehr, No. B-179767.
Thomas J. Bender, Jr., Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish & Levy, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 640]
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. (PNI) petitions this court for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's award of partial unemployment compensation benefits to claimant Wende Woehr, affirming the referee's conclusion that she was able and available for full-time work.*fn1
After claimant's separation from a previous employer, PNI hired claimant on July 10, 1978 as a part-time ad taker, scheduled to work approximately ten hours a week. On January 7, 1979, claimant applied for compensation benefits, contending that she was available for full-time work.
PNI, in protesting the award, asserted that claimant was ineligible under Section 402(a),*fn2 failure to accept suitable work when offered, because she did not apply for any of the full-time positions which PNI's personnel department had posted on the company bulletin board, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement.
Both the referee and the board found that, because claimant never rejected an offer of full-time employment by PNI, she was genuinely and realistically attached to the labor market.
PNI now insists that claimant is ineligible for partial benefits because she applied and was hired only for part-time work. In addition, PNI asks that we view the posting of job openings as constituting offers
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 641]
of full-time employment for which claimant was qualified but failed to apply.
We cannot classify the posted job openings as offers of employment by PNI, because they created no power of acceptance in claimant or any other employee.*fn3 The posting merely served as a vehicle to solicit applications for the openings from current workers; PNI clearly reserved the right to evaluate the applicants' qualifications before proffering any position. Therefore, there was no competent evidence upon which the board could have based a finding that the claimant refused an offer ...