Opinion by
Frоm May 1945 to August 14, 1945, claimant in this unemployment compensation proceeding was employed as a spot weldеr in a munitions plant. On tbe latter date she was laid off because of the termination of war work. She applied for benefits, registered for work, and on August 30, 1945, was referred to two prospective employers. The wages offerеd were the prevailing wage in the area but considerably less than she had been receiving. She rejected bоth referrals without interviewing the referred employers, and the bureau denied her claim. Her appeal to the referee resulted in the affirmance of the bureau’s determination. She appealed to the board, аnd assigned as the reason for her appeal: “Work was not suitable. Girls getting their money. I think I’m entitled to mine to [sic]. I was not fired or layed off. The plant shut down.” The board held that claimant had not had “a reasonable opportunity tо obtain wages reasonably commensurate to those previously earned,” and reversed the referee.
The board’s decision is based upon its policy of affording employes a reasonable opportunity during thе reconversion period of securing employment at wages comparable to their previous earnings. We reviewed this policy and sanctioned it in
Fuller Unemployment Compensation Case,
The policy must not be applied promiscuously, and without regard tо the evidence of the individual case. The policy stems from, is an interpretation of, and is supported only by thе “good cause” phrase of §402(a), of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §802,
1
*569
and it operates only when other factors comprising good cause are also present. The vitalizing element of good cause is good faith.
Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case,
Good faith, in this context, embracеs not only the merely negative virtue of freedom from fraud but also positive conduct which is consistent with a genuine desire to wort and to be self-supporting. Good faith never resides in a claimant who is seeking to take advantagе of his benefit rights in order to have a compensated vacation from work. Cf. 55 Yale L. J. 150.
In the
Fuller
case, supra, p. 75, the сlaimant was looking for work, and “expected to be called back to her former employer within two weeks.” In
Davis Unemployment Compensation Case,
The attitude of this claimant, disclosed by her actiоns and the grounds of her appeal, lacks the essential ingredient of good faith. Her refusal of referrals without interviewing the employers and her written statement that she wanted the benefits which other girls were getting, indicate an aрplication for a vacation rather than for work. By registering for work claimant raised a presumption of hеr availability, but it was weakened by her refusal of referrals, and shaken by her failure to *570 interview prospective employers. Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, supra, p. 560. Her bland assertion of a right to benefit because othеrs were receiving them, regardless of whether the others were receiving •them deservedly or otherwise, advanсes an inadmissible predicate for compensation, and denotes, to state it most mildly, a trifling approach to her own problem of unemployment.
This case vividly illustrates the inherent peril in over-simplified and indiscriminate application of a general policy or principle to a particular case. In the Ficller case, we said that §4(t) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS §753, imposed upon the unemployment compensation authorities the duty to study economic conditions prevailing at the time work is offered, and to adjudicate claims in the light of that situation. But the same section also enumerates personal qualifications — “the length of time he has been unemployed . . . the prospect of obtaining local work in his customary occupation, his previous earnings,” etc., (Italics supplied), and the results of economic studies must be related to an individual whose claim satisfies the requirements of the statute. The law provides benefits for covered emplоyes who are unemployed through no fault of their own, but not for all members of that class of workers, only for those whо are selected, one by one, out of that class, and found to possess the necessary qualifications fоr compensation according to the legislative formula.
Discerning administrators of unemployment compensation have already discovered that unless claims are critically examined and unconscionable requisitions upon the fund firmly rejected public opinion will not support the law. Yale L. J., supra.
Decision reversed.
Notes
“An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week— (a) In which his unemployment is due to failure, without good cause, either to apply for suitable wоrk at such time and in such manner as the department may prescribe, or to accept suitable work when offеred to him by the employment office or by any employer: Provided, That such employer simultaneously notifies the employment office of such offer.” (Italics supplied).