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.

DOLORES ORMISTON v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/03/81)

decided: April 3, 1981.

DOLORES ORMISTON, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Dolores Ormiston, No. B-179218.

COUNSEL

O. Randolph Bragg, with him Frank J. Bolock, Jr., for petitioner.

Steven Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Rogers, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case. Judge Rogers concurs in the result only.

Author: Palladino

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 226]

Claimant appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the referee's denial of benefits.

[ 58 Pa. Commw. Page 227]

Claimant was last employed by National Pretzel as a packer from April of 1969 until May of 1979, when she had a valid separation. On September 28, 1979, a Job Service Interviewer from the Bureau (now Office) of Employment Security telephoned claimant and offered her a referral to a job with Morris White Fashions. The job consisted of inspecting, tagging and packing finished purses into boxes for shipping. The referee found that "[t]he claimant discouraged the Job Service Interviewer from referring her to this position when she stated that she had no transportation [to the job] and she had cataracts which might prevent her from doing inspection work." The referee further found that public transportation was available to the proposed job site and that if claimant had explained her visual problem to the referral employer, the job may have been restructured to exclude the inspection duties.

Based on the above findings, the referee concluded that the claimant's discouraging comments to the Job Service Interviewer "were not indicative of good faith" as required by Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 and that therefore the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits. The Board affirmed the determination and this appeal followed. We affirm.

Section 402(a) of the Law states in relevant part as follows:

An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --

(a) In which his unemployment is due to failure, without good cause, either to apply for suitable work at such time and in such manner as the ...


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.