Opinion by
This is an unemployment compensation case in which the bureau disqualified the claimant, the referee rеversed the bureau, and the board of review reversed the referee, and entered an order disallоwing compensation. In support thereof, the board of review specifically found the following facts: Claimant’s last employment, with the Aldan Rubber Company as clerk inside the plant at a wage of ninety cents рer hour, was terminated by lay-off on August 31, 1945. She had previous work experience as sales clerk in a dry goods store. On June 20, 1946, claimant was referred to the J. B. Smith Company (iron works), which offered a position placing nuts аnd bolts in vents at a wage of fifty-five cents per hour. After interviewing the prospective employer, clаimant refused the position on the grounds that the wage rate was insufficient, and that the work was not in conformity with hеr prior training and experience. The board of review *3 concluded: “Inasmuch as the claimant had bеen unemployed approximately ten months at the time the work was offered to her, it is the opinion of this Board that she had been given ample opportunity to find employment of the standard she desired and, thеrefore, her refusal to accept the work offered was unwarranted.” From the action of the board thus disqualifying her for compensation, claimant, has taken this appeal.
The facts in the case аre undisputed, and the only question presented is whether they form a sufficient basis for concluding that claimant was offered suitable work and that she. refused it without good cause.
In the broad sense, “suitable work” is not synonymous with “want of good cause” in refusing work; rather, they are to be treated as separate and distinct concepts.
Barclay White Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review,
We have recognized that, where an employee is referred to a position which pays a wage materially lower
*4
than the wage last earned, the employee may be justified in refusing such a referral while seeking employment at a rаte of pay more commensurate with his previously demonstrated earning capacity. The right to deсline work for this reason is not, however, without qualification; the employee is entitled only to a reasоnable Opportunity to obtain work at a satisfactory wage rate. In
Fuller Unemployment Compensation
Case,
Claimant also objected to the proffered work on the ground that it was not in confоrmity with her prior training and experience. We attach little weight to this objection. She admitted that she was capable of performing the work and that she would have accépted the position exceрt for the wage rate and her assumption that there was “no chance of advancement.” A referеnce to claimant’s testimony in which she described *5 more particularly her duties with the Aldan Rubber Company, tbe lаst employer, shows that tbe duties were performed not in tbe office but in tbe shop, and consisted of placing tickets on rolls of clotb wbicb passed through. tbe plant in tbe course of a process of rubberizing. Whilе this task differs somewhat from that of placing nuts and bolts in vents, we are not convinced that tbe difference was so great as to render the proffered work unsuitable. . ' . .
Decision is affirmed.