Sanft Unemployment Compensation Case

198 A.2d 606, 202 Pa. Super. 546, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1003
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedMarch 17, 1964
DocketAppeal, No. 346
StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.2d 606 (Sanft 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
Sanft Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 A.2d 606, 202 Pa. Super. 546, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1003 (Pa. Ct. App. 1964).

Opinion

Opinion by

Montgomery, J.,

The claimant, in this unemployment compensation case, had a valid separation from the Tournament of Thrills, an entertainment company, which she had served as office manager at $75 per week, and was awarded benefits. After being unemployed for five months, she was referred by the Pennsylvania State Employment Service to a possible job opportunity as a clerk-typist at $50 per week. This employment required her to work on Saturdays but gave her a day off on Thursdays. She declined that job offer because she could not secure a baby sitter on Saturdays to permit her to work on that day. The Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Board of Review all concluded that she failed to accept an offer of suitable employment without good cause and, therefore, was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Such action is supported by our decision in Buchko Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 559, 175 A. 2d 914 (1961).

In this appeal claimant does not question the reason relied on by the board for refusing her benefits but, on the contrary, now asserts a new reason to sustain her claim for benefits, contending that the job opportunity to which she was referred was unsuitable work. She contends that, if she accepted it, she would lose her skills and her earning power would drop. For that reason she seeks reasonable time in which to compete in the labor market for an available job at which she might apply her proper skills. This contention is likewise without merit. Five months of unemployment is not an unreasonable period of time for a person to seek the type of employment he or she desires. Palmieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Superior Ct. 187, 181 A. 2d 864 (1962); Melder Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 608, 176 A. [548]*5482d 160 (1961); Cicerella Unemployment Compensation Case, 185 Pa. Superior Ct. 63, 137 A. 2d 853 (1958).

Decision affirmed.

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

Related

Cicerella Unemployment Compensation Case
137 A.2d 853 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1958)
Buchko Unemployment Compensation Case
175 A.2d 914 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
Melder Unemployment Compensation Case
176 A.2d 160 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1961)
Palmieri Unemployment Compensation Case
181 A.2d 864 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
198 A.2d 606, 202 Pa. Super. 546, 1964 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanft-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1964.