18 Pa. Commw. 639 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1975
Opinion by
Lucille Becote, the claimant, was denied benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law
The referee assigned to hear evidence on the claimant’s application for benefits found as follows:
“1. Claimant was last employed by P. H. Berman & Son, Inc., Howard & Palmer Sts., Philadelphia, Pa. 19122 for 28 years as a rag cutter at $2.00 an hour, and her last day of work was May 24, 1972.
“2. In 1970 A & B Wiper Supply, 116 Fountain St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19127 purchased P. H. Berman*641 & Son Inc., but continued to operate under the name of P. H. Berman & Son, Inc. at Howard & Palmer Streets.
“3. On May 24, 1972 a meeting was held with the employees of P. H. Berman & Son, Inc. and they were advised that the company was being closed but they were to contact their union to obtain their assignments at the employer’s location at 116 Fountain Street.
“4. Claimant attended the meeting when the above instructions were given, but she failed to contact the union or the employer in an effort to remain employed.
“5. Continuing work was available for the claimant had she reported for work.”
The referee then ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits for having quit work without a necessitous and compelling reason. After first granting an additional hearing before the referee, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed the referee and this appeal followed.
Our scope of review in unemployment compensation appeals is limited to questions of law and to a determination of whether the findings of the compensation authorities are supported by the evidence. Dingel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 484, 322 A.2d 731 (1974).
We cannot agree with the employer’s contention that the claimant quit her job voluntarily. If the employer’s testimony is believed, as it apparently was by both the referee and the Board, the claimant was told that the employer was ceasing operations, that a new plant under a different name would open at a new location, and that employment at the new plant would be available through the union. The record also discloses that the employer did not expect work to be available at the new plant for at least two weeks. The claimant, therefore, would have been out of work through no fault of her own for at least
Moreover, the circumstances were such that the claimant could not be legally presumed to have quit her job. Obviously, she cannot be held to have voluntarily terminated her employment relationship when it was the fact that her employer decided to go out of business which brought about her unemployment, at least initially. Golubski Unemployment Compensation Case, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 634, 91 A.2d 315 (1952). If otherwise not disqualified, therefore, she would clearly be entitled to benefits.
The employer argues that the claimant failed to accept work when notified of its availability and that this action disqualifies her.
“With respect to offers of suitable work made directly by any employer the following rules shall apply:
“(3) The offer to the employee shall be in writing and a carbon copy, or an exact duplicate, shall be furnished to the employment office within three days after the mailing of the offer.” 34 Pa. Code §65.22 (a).
We issue, therefore, the following
Order
And Now, this 5th day of May, 1975, the appeal by Lucille Becote from the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby sustained and this record is remanded to the Board for the computation of the benefits due the claimant.
. The Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §751 et seq.
. Section 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802(a).