Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Martha C. O'Neil, No. B-200-422.
Mark S. Shiffman, Baskin and Sears, P.C., for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 431]
This appeal of Colonial Taxi Company (Colonial) is from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's award of unemployment compensation benefits to Martha C. O'Neil (claimant).
Claimant was last employed by Colonial as a paratransit aide on a school bus which carried handicapped children. She worked from January 1981 to June 10, 1981, when she was separated from employment because school closed for the summer. In May, 1981, claimant had received an availability form from Colonial which requested information regarding her availability during the summer as a driver. Claimant deleted the word "driver" and substituted the word "aide" and returned the form to Colonial. She could not be employed as a driver because she did not have a driver's license. Claimant was informed that summer work might be available to drivers and aides in early July, 1981.
Claimant had indicated on her employment application for Colonial that she had worked for Bell Telephone Company as an operator from 1954 to 1976. Colonial had interviewed several women for work as telephone operators during May and June, 1981, but had not contacted claimant for possible work as a telephone operator.
Claimant had sought information regarding available summer work from an office worker but was told
[ 84 Pa. Commw. Page 432]
that no work was available for her. She, however, actively sought other employment elsewhere as a teacher's aide. On July 7, 1981, claimant returned to work with Colonial.
The Office of Employment Security awarded benefits to the claimant and a referee, whose findings and conclusions were adopted by the Board, affirmed the award of benefits. The referee determined that claimant satisfied the requirements under Section 401(d)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d) (Supp. 1984-85), for unemployment compensation benefits because she was able and available for suitable work, and maintained an attachment to the labor market.
Our scope of review is limited to whether the findings of fact made by either the Board or referee are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Hussar v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 28, 432 A.2d 643 (1981). We deal primarily with Section 401(d) of the Law which provides that a claimant must be both available for work and attached to the labor market to be eligible for unemployment compensation ...