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.

ELIZABETH M. MIKOLAYCZAK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/13/86)

decided: January 13, 1986.

ELIZABETH M. MIKOLAYCZAK, 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 Elizabeth Mikolayczak, No. B-220993-B.

COUNSEL

Michael C. Kostelaba, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, Susan J. Forney, for respondent.

John R. O'Brien, for intervenor/respondent, Community Medical Center.

Judges Doyle and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.

Author: Palladino

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 164]

This is an appeal by Elizabeth M. Mikolayczak (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision which denied Claimant benefits under Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law) on the ground that she refused suitable work without good cause. We affirm.

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 165]

The facts as found by the Board*fn2 are as follows: Claimant was last employed as a food service worker on May 2, 1982 by Community Medical Center (Employer). At that time Claimant worked a Monday to Friday schedule. Claimant terminated her employment for medical reasons not here at issue. On January 4, 1983 Employer, by letter sent registered mail, offered to reemploy Claimant at her prior rate of pay. Employer also sent a photocopy of this letter to the local Office of Employment Security (OES). The job would have required that Claimant work alternating weekends. Claimant was asked to respond to the job offer by January 12, 1983, but she did not do so.

The Board made the following findings with respect to the reason for Claimant's refusal to accept the job offer:

7. The claimant did not accept the employment solely as a matter of personal preference in that she did not want to work Sundays as she wanted to be at home with her family.

8. The claimant had worked on Sundays when she first began her employment with ...


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.