49 A.2d 260 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1946
Argued October 1, 1946. From May 1945 to August 14, 1945, claimant in this unemployment compensation proceeding was employed as a spot welder in a munitions plant. On the 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 offered were the prevailing wage in the area but considerably less than she had been receiving. She rejected both 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, and 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 to 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 the reconversion period of securing employment at wages comparable to their previous earnings. We reviewed this policy and sanctioned it in FullerUnemployment Compensation Case,
The policy must not be applied promiscuously, and without regard to the evidence of the individual case. The policy stems from, is an interpretation of, and is supported only by the "good cause" phrase of § 402(a), of the Unemployment Compensation Law,
Good faith, in this context, embraces not only the merely negative virtue of freedom from fraud but also positive conduct which is consistent with a genuine desire to work and to be self-supporting. Good faith never resides in a claimant who is seeking to take advantage 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 claimant 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 actions 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 application for a vacation rather than for work. By registering for work claimant raised a presumption of her availability, but it was weakened by her refusal of referrals, and shaken by her failure to *570 interview prospective employers. Sturdevant UnemploymentCompensation Case, supra, p. 560. Her bland assertion of a right to benefit because others were receiving them, regardless of whether the others were receiving them deservedly or otherwise, advances 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 Fuller case, we said that § 4(t) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,
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.