83 Pa. Commw. 165 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1984
Opinion by
Before us are the consolidated appeals of the Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania (Employer) from separate orders of the Uneemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the referees’ awards of benefits to seven former employees
Claimants were employed as claim processors, and worked for the Employer during the night shift, from 5:00 until 10:00 p.m. each evening. In March of 1981, Employer informed Claimants that the night shift would be eliminated in May of that year, but that each Claimant could continue employment after that date by accepting a position on the day shift. Each Claimant refused the offer of daytime employment, citing her conflicting obligation to care for her small children during the day while her husband worked. Employer again offered Claimants daytime employment in May, shortly before the elimination of the Claimants’ night shift, but again, each Claimant refused. Claimants left work upon the elimination of the night shift on May 22, 1981, and applied for unemployment compensation. After an initial determination by the
Before this Court, Employer argues that the referees and the Board erred in applying Section 402(b) of the Law, and urges that Section 402(a) and Section 402(a)(1) of the Law
Ineligibility for compensation
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 work ... or to accept suitable work when offered to him ... by any employer. . . .
(a)(1) In which his unemployment is due to failure to accept an offer of suitable full-time work in order to pursue seasonal or part-time employment.
It is clear that these Sections are intended to apply only to those claimants who, while unemployed, refuse
Employer also argues that Claimants are ineligible for benefits under Section 401(d)(1) of the Act,
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Board did not err in affirming the decisions of the referees granting benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the decisions of the Board.
Order
Now, June 8, 1984, the orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above referenced matters, Nos. B-200314 and B-200315, dated October 19, 1981, and Nos. B-203334 through B-203338, dated February 10,1982, are hereby affirmed.
Elizabeth Willison, Joyce Stachniewicz, Beverly Froncek, Geraldine Glushefski, Gloria Yarnal, Rose Bohonko and Shirley Cavanaugh.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended.
The Office of Employment Security had granted benefits in every case except that of Geraldine Glushefski.
Domestic responsibilities, including the care for small children, may constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for purposes of Section 402(b) of the Law. See Wallace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 342, 393 A.2d 43 (1978).
43 P.S. §§802(a), 802(a)(1).
In two cases also decided today, this Court applied Section 402(a) of the Law where the employee became unemployed, and thereafter refused an offer of suitable work because of child care obligations. Ferrone v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 147, 476 A.2d 514 (1984); Jurkiewicz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 141, 477 A.2d 583 (1984).
43 P.S. §801 (d) (1).