COMMONWEALTH оf Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN & LINDSEY, INCORPORATED, Appellee.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided Dec. 17, 1981.
438 A.2d 590
Argued Oct. 27, 1981.
Edwin B. Barnett, Philadelphia, for appellee.
Jerome H. Gerber and James L. Cowden, Harrisburg, for amicus Pa. AFL-CIO.
Before O‘BRIEN, C. J., and ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN, FLAHERTY and KAUFFMAN, JJ.
LARSEN, Justice.
Claimant, Karen Jesiolowski, applied for unemployment compensation benefits in May, 1976. The Bureau of Employment Seсurity denied the claim. After a hearing before a Referee, the denial of benefits was affirmed. The Unemployment Compensation Boаrd of Review (Board), appellant herein, then reversed the decision of the Referee and granted claimant unemployment cоmpensation. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed the order of the Board and denied claimant benefits. Franklin & Lindsey, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commw.Ct. 59, 396 A.2d 497 (1979). We granted allocatur and we now reverse.
On May 21, 1976 claimant was laid off by appellee due to lack of field work. At the time, her salary was $120 per week. On May 26, 1976 appellee offered to recall claimant to do “purely secretarial work” at the continuing rate of $120 per week. Claimant refused the proffered employment because she felt that a purely secretarial job wаs not in keeping with her training and experience, that her drafting skills would deteriorate if not used, and that the job lacked sufficient opportunitiеs for advancement.
Claimant‘s prior work experience included part-time secretarial work for six months, full-time secretarial work fоr three months, and work as a draftsperson technician from September, 1974 through April, 1975.
Appellant‘s contention on this appeal is that аppellee‘s offer of “purely secretarial work” did not constitute “suitable work” within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Lаw, and that the Commonwealth Court‘s holding to the contrary was error.
Section 402 of the Unemployment Compensation Law provides that
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—
(a) In which his unemployment is due to failure, without good cause, ... to accept suitable work when offered to him ... by any employer ....
“Suitable Work” means all work which the employe is capable of performing. In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the department shall consider the degree of risk involvеd to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness, prior training and experience, and the distance of the available work from his residence. The department shall also сonsider among other factors the length of time he has been unemployed and the reasons therefor, the prospect of obtаining local work in his customary occupation, his previous earnings, the prevailing condition of the labor market generally and partiсularly in his usual trade or occupation, prevailing wage rates in his usual trade or occupation, and the permanency of his residence....
The statutory definition of “suitable work” as “all work which the employe is caрable of performing” is only the starting point of our inquiry. Although the claimant in this case may be capable of performing as a secretаry, that fact is not dispositive of this appeal, since the statute goes on to enumerate those other factors which must be considеred “in determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual.”
This Court has held that “in determining suitability of work, prior training and experience are inevitable touchstones of deliberation,” and has recognized that a claimant must have a “reasonable opportunity” to find employment commensurate with his or her training and experience. Shay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 424 Pa. 287, 290, 227 A.2d 174, 176 (1967). In this case, the Commonwealth Court failed to give any consideration to either of these factors.
Claimant‘s most recent and most extensive training and experience were in civil engineering, particularly in the areas оf drafting and surveying. According to the Board‘s findings of fact, claimant worked continuously for eighteen months as a draftsperson and/or surveyor, and fоr an addi-
In contrast, while the Board concluded that claimant had had some secretarial experience, it found that she had wоrked as a secretary for only three months full-time and six months part-time.1
Furthermore, claimant had little time to secure other employment сommensurate with her training and experience as a draftsperson-surveyor, since appellee offered to recall her to do “purely secretarial work” only five days after her layoff.
The Unemployment Compensation Law “is remedial in nature and thus should be liberаlly and broadly construed.
Since appellee‘s offer to claimant of “purely secretarial work” wholly disregarded claimant‘s training and experience as а draftsperson-surveyor, and since claimant had no reasonable opportunity to obtain other employment in the areas of drаfting and surveying, we conclude that appellee‘s offer to claimant was not an offer of “suitable work.” Consequently, it was error for the Commonwealth Court to hold claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation based upon a failure to accept suitable work.
WILKINSON, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
FLAHERTY, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KAUFFMAN, J., joined.
FLAHERTY, Justice, dissenting.
I must dissent. Under the facts оf this case, the claimant was clearly offered “suitable work“, as that term is defined by the
KAUFFMAN, J., joins this dissenting opinion.