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.

SAMUEL BRULLO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (06/12/81)

decided: June 12, 1981.

SAMUEL BRULLO, 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 Samuel Brullo, No. 179662.

COUNSEL

Michelle R. Terry, for petitioner.

Stephen B. Lipson, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.

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

Author: Palladino

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 39]

Samuel Brullo (Claimant) appeals here from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 40]

Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Sections 402(a) and 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We affirm.

On June 21, 1979, Claimant was laid off his job at American Fidelity Home Remodeling, where he was employed as a carpenter. Thereafter, Claimant applied for and began to receive unemployment compensation benefits. On September 17, 1979, the Bureau, now Office, of Employment Security (Bureau) offered Claimant a referral to possible employment with Enzo Iannucci as an $8 per hour carpenter. Claimant refused to accept this referral stating (1) that he needed an automobile to carry his tools, (2) that his automobile was not operating, and (3) that he did not have enough money to repair his car. The Bureau subsequently concluded that Claimant had refused a referral to possible employment without good cause, and that he was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits by Section 402(a) of the Law. On appeal, the referee affirmed and modified the Bureau's determination by concluding that Claimant was also disqualified from receiving benefits by Section 401(d) of the Law. The Board subsequently affirmed, and the present appeal followed.

Before this Court, Claimant first alleges that there is not sufficient evidence in the record to support the Board's finding that a referral was made by the Bureau. We disagree.

At the referee's hearing Claimant testified (1) that he was informed by a Bureau representative of the possibility of employment with Iannucci and (2) that he declined this offer because of transportation difficulties. A summary of interview form, signed by

[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 41]

Claimant, was also introduced into evidence at the referee's hearing. On this form, Claimant detailed the terms of the Bureau's referral ...


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.