Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Lavina R. Snow, No. B-235884.
William J. Maikovich, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Doyle, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Senior Judge Barbieri.
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 260]
Lavina R. Snow (Claimant) appeals here the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her benefits pursuant to that provision of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) which precludes payment of benefits to claimants who are employees of educational institutions, are between successive academic terms and have reasonable assurance of working in some capacity the coming term.*fn1
Claimant was furloughed from her cafeteria job for the Chartiers Houston School District at the end of the 1982-83 school year but was retained as a substitute in which capacity she worked through the 1983-84 school year. Concurrently, she received partial unemployment compensation representing her entitlement, based upon her prior full-time earnings, less her current part-time earnings. Claimant was notified by the School District at the end of the school year that
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 261]
she would be on the substitute list again for the 1984-85 school year. Several schools in the District were closed at the end of the 1983-84 school year with the result that four regular cafeteria school workers with greater seniority were laid off. The Board concluded that, although Claimant was fifth on the list to be called for substitute cafeteria work, it could not be said that Claimant did not have reasonable assurance of employment in the 1984-85 school year and that, therefore, Claimant was ineligible to receive benefits during the summer recess.
On appeal, Claimant makes alternative arguments; that under the rationale of Haynes v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 541, 442 A.2d 1232 (1982), the Board erred as a matter of law in denying her unemployment benefits during the summer recess, or, that she is eligible to receive benefits because, since she is fifth on the list of substitutes, she has no reasonable assurance of employment in the coming academic term.
In Haynes, the claimant, a furloughed full-time professional employee, had been denied benefits pursuant to Section 402.1(3) of the Law.*fn2 Haynes had been laid off at the end of the 1977-78 school year and worked intermittently as a per-diem substitute during the 1978-79 school year. In awarding benefits to Haynes for the time period the district schools were closed for the Thanksgiving holidays, this Court expressed
[ 95 Pa. Commw. Page 262]
its disbelief that the legislature in passing Section 402.1 meant to exclude Haynes from eligibility for benefits since he truly was suffering from economic insecurity and was not ...