Unemployment Compensation — Refusal of suitable work — Good cause — Evidence — Unemployment Compensation, Law.
1. The good cause necessary for refusing proffered work rests on the good faith of the claimant, which includes conduct which is consistent with the genuine desire to work and be self-supporting.
2. In this case, in which it appeared that claimant, last employed as a general office worker, at $100 per week, by a corporation owned and controlled by her father, was laid off, and that she refused referrals as an assistant bookkeeper at salaries of $50 and $60, respectively, after she had been unemployed for more than four months, it was Held that claimant was not entitled to benefits under the provisions of § 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Argued March 22, 1962.
OPINION BY WATKINS, J., April 12, 1962:
This is an unemployment compensation case in which the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review all concluded that the claimant was not entitled to benefits under the provisions of § 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(a), when she refused to accept several referrals of suitable work.
The claimant, Mary G. Valentine, was last employed by Delaware Valley Wool Scouring Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as a general office worker, at $100 per week. It should be noted that the record discloses that the corporation was owned and controlled by her father. She was laid off on September 2, 1960. She was offered two referrals as an assistant bookkeeper at salaries of $50 and $60, respectively, after she had been unemployed for more than four months. She refused to accept either referral because the salary was insufficient.
As we said in Lorenzi Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 573, 180 A.2d 84 (1962), ". . . the good cause necessary for refusing proffered work rests on the good faith of the claimant, which includes conduct which is consistent with the genuine desire to work and be self supporting." This claimant's conduct is not consistent with this definition of good cause. Weiland Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Super. 554, 76 A.2d 457 (1950); Bentz Unemployment Compensation Case, 190 Pa. Super. 582, 155 A.2d 461 (1959); D'Amato Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 76, 173 A.2d 680 (1961).
Decision affirmed.