Hansen v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 31 October 1980
• Parties: Willard W. HANSEN, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

422 A.2d 707

54 Pa.Cmwlth. 440

Willard W. HANSEN, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION

BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

October 31, 1980

Argued Oct. 6, 1980.

Willard W. Hansen pro se.

Richard Wagner, Gen. Counsel, Charles G. Hasson, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, Harrisburg, for respondent.

Before CRUMLISH, President Judge, and BLATT and CRAIG, JJ.

CRAIG, Judge.

In this unemployment compensation appeal, the claimant ^[1] questions a denial of compensation by the board, ^[2] which affirmed the referee's ruling that claimant was ineligible for benefits under the disqualifying provision of Section 402.1(1) ^[3] of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act). We affirm.

Claimant was last employed by Lenape Vocational-Tech (Lenape) School as a per diem substitute teacher during the 1977-78 school term. Claimant's last day of work was May 9, 1978; thereafter claimant did not work because of the annual summer vacation. Claimant sought benefits for the duration of the vacation period.

The board denied benefits, finding that claimant had a reasonable assurance of employment with Lenape at the start of the next academic year and hence was disqualified under Section 402.1(1).

The record discloses that, in June 1977 claimant received from Lenape a letter which offered to place claimant's name on the substitute teacher list for the 1978-79 school year. Furthermore, claimant testified that he intended to accept the offer. ^[4]

Claimant contends, however, that the fact that Lenape placed claimant's name on its substitute teacher list for the ensuing year does not constitute reasonable assurance. Claimant's point is that he does not have a guarantee that he will be called when a regular teacher is absent.

Section 402.1 does not require a guarantee, but only a reasonable assurance of re-employment, and the board, based on its examination of the relevant facts, must make that determination. Goralski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 39, 408 A.2d 1178 (1979). Here, as in Gorlaski, we cannot find any evidence to suggest that the school would deviate from its list when selecting substitute teachers.

The findings of the board are supported by substantial evidence and, being therefore binding on this court, are affirmed.

Accordingly we affirm the decision of the board.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of October, 1980, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby affirmed.

---------

Notes:

^[1] Willard W. Hansen.

^[2] Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.

^[3] Section 402.1(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802.1(1).

^[4] Claimant gave the...