Summary
In Lovich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 189 Pa. Super. 529, 151 A.2d 647, the court held that by restricting his availability for work to hours that would not conflict with his regular schedule of classes from 8 a. m. to 2:20 p. m. a student in a teacher's college "detached himself from the labor market."
Summary of this case from Texas Employment Commission v. HaysOpinion
April 14, 1959.
June 10, 1959.
Unemployment Compensation — Availability for work — Regular student at college — Evidence.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant was a regular student at a college while he was employed after school hours; that he was laid off due to lack of work; and that the board found that employment possibilities that would correspond to the hours that claimant was available for work were practically nonexistent in the local area; it was Held that benefits were properly denied claimant under § 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
2. One may render himself unavailable for work by conditions and limitations imposed by himself.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 73, April T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-50031, in re claim of George Lovich. Decision affirmed.
George Lovich, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.
Argued April 14, 1959.
During the period with which we are concerned claimant was attending a State Teachers College at California, Pennsylvania. He was a regular student and his daily schedule of classes was from 8 a.m. to 2:20 p.m.; there was no night school. He was last employed at Monessen by Pittsburgh Steel Company. After six months of continuous service he was laid off on June 28, 1958, due to lack of work. The Board of Review in affirming the referee properly denied benefits under 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 801(d).
It was not contemplated by the Law that a claimant limit his availability for employment to a shift that did not conflict with his school schedule. Commendable as claimant's determination to get a schooling may be, it was for him to find the means of getting instruction during hours that did not conflict with every available work shift.
There was no factual dispute in this case, and the board found that "Employment possibilities that would correspond to the hours the claimant is available for work are practically non-existent in the local area." By restricting his availability to night work, only, claimant detached himself from the labor market. Squires Unempl. Compensation Case, 172 Pa. Superior Ct. 424, 94 A.2d 172. One may render himself unavailable for work by conditions and limitations imposed by him. Pinto Unempl. Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Super. 540, 79 A.2d 802; Bernotas Unempl. Compensation Case, 175 Pa. Super. 437, 106 A.2d 638.
Decision affirmed.