Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Richard Roland Carson, No. B-207211.
Richard R. Carson, petitioner, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers Craig and Colins, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 298]
Richard Roland Carson appeals from a decision by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed a referee's denial of extended benefits because, for the week ending February 13, 1982, Mr. Carson allegedly failed "to actively engage in seeking work," as required by section 403-A(b)(2) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
We must decide if substantial evidence supports the board's determination of ineligibility.
The referee found that Mr. Carson met with OES authorities on February 3, 10, and 12, 1982 and that in the last meeting, an OES representative, Mrs. Augenbright, informed Mr. Carson that, to receive benefits, he needed to make four separate job inquiries within
[ 83 Pa. Commw. Page 299]
a given week. During the week ending February 13, 1982, he made only two inquiries.
An individual cannot receive compensation under the Law's extended benefits program, if, among other things, he fails "to actively engage in seeking work. . . ." 43 P.S. § 813(b)(2). An individual actively engages in seeking work during any week if he "has engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work during such week," 43 P.S. § 813(f)(1), and "furnished tangible evidence that he has engaged in such an effort during such week" 43 P.S. § 813(f)(2). The Law does not define "systematic and sustained effort to obtain work."*fn2
Mr. Carson first contends that the local OES authorities did not inform him of the four-employer contact ...