Opinion
March 21, 1962.
April 12, 1962.
Unemployment Compensation — Refusal of suitable work — Good cause — Requirement of double amount of salary offered — 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, a research chemist, had refused proffered work as a chemical engineer at a salary of $500 a month, by telling the prospective employer, by telephone, that he expected twice that salary, so that he was not interviewed further, that he had been paid $750 a month in his last employment, and that he had been out of work seven months, it was Held that he was inelligible for benefits under § 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 76, Oct. T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-68236, in re claim of Frank J. Lorenzi. Decision affirmed.
Frank J. Lorenzi, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued March 21, 1962.
In this unemployment compensation case benefits were denied by the compensation authorities under the provisions of § 402(a) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(a), in that the claimant, Frank J. Lorenzi, a research chemist, had refused proffered work as a chemical engineer, at a salary of $500 a month, by telling the prospective employer, by telephone, that he expected twice that salary so that he was not interviewed further. He had been out of work seven months and had been paid $750 a month in his last employment.
We have held many times that 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. His action, in regard to the employment offered was, in effect, a refusal of the work because of the difference in salary and did not constitute good cause as required by the law. 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.