Pinto Unemployment Compensation Case

79 A.2d 802, 168 Pa. Super. 540, 1951 Pa. Super. LEXIS 341
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedApril 10, 1951
DocketAppeal, 37
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 79 A.2d 802 (Pinto Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pinto Unemployment Compensation Case, 79 A.2d 802, 168 Pa. Super. 540, 1951 Pa. Super. LEXIS 341 (Pa. Ct. App. 1951).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

Appellant was denied unemployment compensation by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which affirmed the order of disallowance of the referee. The question is whether the evidence supports the Board’s finding that appellant was disqualified under section 401 (d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 PS §801 (d).

Appellant was employed by Stern’s, Seventh and Market Streets, Philadelphia, until December 31, 1949, when her employment was terminated by the employer. On March 15, 1950, appellant was referred to Yetta’s Dress Shop as a saleswoman, and she called on the prospective employer. During the interview appellant stated that she expected to be recalled by her former employer, and that she intended to return when re *542 called which would be within one or two weeks. Appellant was not hired. The Board also found that appellant, “for all intents and purposes, limited her availability to the extent of rendering herself practically unemployable, . . . ,” and concluded that she “was not available for suitable work within the meaning of the aforementioned section 401 (d) of the law.”

Obviously the condition which appellant attached to her acceptance of work rendered herself unavailable for suitable work. Appellant was told that the prospective employer desired to hire “a girl that will work steady.” Such limitation that she would only work until she went back to Stern’s within one or two weeks rendered her unavailable for work unless it appears that there was a reasonable opportunity for securing such work for such a limited duration in the vicinity in which she lived. See Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa. Superior Ct. 548, 561, 45 A. 2d 898. A claimant is required at all times to be ready, able, and willing to accept suitable employment, temporary or full time. Mattey Unemployment Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 36, 41, 63 A. 2d 429. But one may render himself unavailable for work by conditions and limitations as to employment. Willingness to be employed conditionally does not necessarily meet the test of availability. The determination of availability is largely a question of fact for the Board.

The findings of the Board are supported by the evidence and are binding upon us. Weiland Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Superior Ct. 554, 76 A. 2d 457.

Decision is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wincek v. Commonwealth
439 A.2d 890 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1982)
Penn Hills School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
437 A.2d 1213 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Penn Hills School District v. Commonwealth
425 A.2d 30 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Molnar v. Commonwealth
397 A.2d 869 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1979)
United States Steel Corp. v. Commonwealth
389 A.2d 249 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Tokar v. Commonwealth
385 A.2d 634 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Greer v. Commonwealth
383 A.2d 1327 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Chickey v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
332 A.2d 853 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1975)
Dingel v. Commonwealth
322 A.2d 731 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Knox v. Commonwealth
315 A.2d 915 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Paisley v. Commonwealth
315 A.2d 908 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1974)
Stanek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
295 A.2d 198 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 1972)
Friedman Unemployment Compensation Case
193 A.2d 676 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1963)
Semanisin Unemployment Compensation Case
181 A.2d 720 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)
Stanley Unemployment Compensation Case
165 A.2d 431 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Baker Unemployment Compensation Case
165 A.2d 103 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Majoris Unemployment Compensation Case
162 A.2d 86 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Barron Unemployment Compensation Case
161 A.2d 630 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Trabold Unemployment Compensation Case
159 A.2d 272 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)
Gulbin Unemployment Compensation Case
159 A.2d 37 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1960)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
79 A.2d 802, 168 Pa. Super. 540, 1951 Pa. Super. LEXIS 341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pinto-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1951.