66 Pa. Commw. 565 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1982
Opinion by
The claimant, Virginia Tomkus, appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which adopted a referee’s decision to deny her benefits under Section 402(a)
Keeping in mind our limited scope of factual review,
Before us the claimant argues that the referee and the Board erred in applying Section 402(a) of the Law, and urges that Section 402(b)(1), 43 P.S. §802(b)(l), controls.
Section 402(a) applies to a claimant who was unemployed' but refuses “without good cause, either to apply for suitable work ... or to accept suitable work when offered to him ... by any employer. ...”
Section 402(b) (1) controls where the claimant was employed but voluntarily severs the employment relationship “without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. ...” Compare Seeherman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 643, 423 A.2d 1128 (1981) with Tuono v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 583, 422 A.2d 240 (1980).
Here the claimant did not voluntarily quit her job; rather, she was discharged and became unemployed. Then she was later offered suitable employment which she refused, and, our careful review of the record as a whole leads us to agree with the referee and the Board that she has not shown that such refusal was for good cause. Seeherman.
We will, therefore, affirm the order of the Board.
Order
And Now, this 25th day of May, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
(Law) Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(a).
Where, as here, the party with tbe burden of proof has not prevailed below, our scope of factual • review is restricted to a determination of whether or not tbe Board capriciously disregarded
Proctor & Schwartz.