Louderback v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 16 January 1980 |
| Citation | 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 501,409 A.2d 1198 |
| Parties | Barbara LOUDERBACK, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW and Bristol Township School District, Respondents (two cases). Reva KAPLAN, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Here consolidated for our consideration are the appeals of petitioners (claimants), substitute teachers for the School District of Bristol Township (Bristol), from three separate orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), denying benefits for periods of summer vacation. We affirm.
Claimant, Reva Kaplan, had served Bristol as a substitute teacher for ten consecutive years prior to filing for unemployment compensation benefits on June 19, 1977. Adequate evidence appears of record to support the Board's conclusion that an implied agreement existed between the claimant and Bristol with regard to future substitute teaching, making benefits unavailable pursuant to Section 203(b) of the Emergency Jobs and Unemployment Assistance Act of 1974, 26 U.S.C. § 3304 note. The record likewise supports the Board's finding that claimant was not realistically attached to the labor force and therefore unavailable for suitable work pursuant to Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, As amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d).
Since the autumn of 1967, claimant has served as a substitute teacher for Bristol. She completed a form during the summer of 1977 indicating her intention to continue that ongoing relationship during the following school year, in anticipation of which her name was placed on the substitute teacher list for the following year.
The instant case is indistinguishable from and therefore controlled by the recent case of Ellman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, --- Pa.Cmwlth. ---, 407 A.2d 478 (1979). If anything, we find the present factual setting, with its demonstration of a long-standing relationship, even more compelling. In the absence of some evidence to indicate the existence of a substantial reason for believing she would not be rehired in September 1977 the claimant cannot prevail. See Sude v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa.Cmwlth. 533, 402 A.2d 1122 (1979). We accordingly affirm the Board's order denying benefits in the above case.
The remaining two appeals are both presented by claimant Barbara Louderback and will be considered chronologically.
The first of Ms. Louderback's claims seeks benefits for compensable weeks ending June 18 and June 25, 1977. Claimant last worked for Bristol as a substitute teacher on June 13, 1977, approximately four days before the official end of school. Following an award of benefits by a referee, the Board reversed finding claimant and Bristol had an implied agreement for future employment 1 and that Ms. Louderback intended and expected to return to work the following September thereby making her unavailable for suitable work. 2
Claimant here, as in the case of Ms. Kaplan, presents a significant history of substitute teaching for Bristol and other districts. She also indicated to Bristol her intention to continue substitute work. Claimant attempts to demonstrate the existence of circumstances which cast a substantial doubt on the likelihood of future employment, I. e. the lay-offs of twenty-six regular full-time teachers at the close of the 1976-77 school year who would have priority over claimant for future substitute teaching assignments.
Although such a circumstance is relevant evidence with respect to the likelihood of continued employment it is not alone determinative. Substitute teaching is by its nature inherently indefinite depending as it does on the occurrence of unforeseen vacancies in the teaching faculty. All that can be said with certainty about the effect of the lay-offs is that the opportunities for substitute teaching for persons in claimant's position may be diminished in the coming year. 3 So long as the claimant desires and intends to continue substitute work and Bristol expects to offer such work when it becomes available, the employment relationship of a substitute teacher remains viable. The record here fully reveals the intention of both parties to maintain that relationship; the Board's order in the instant case will accordingly be affirmed.
The final appeal, and the second presented by claimant Barbara Louderback, presents a somewhat different factual and legal setting. The Board denied benefits on the authority of Section 402.1 of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mogren v. State of Kan. Employment Sec. Bd. of Review, 64921
...251 N.W.2d 626 (1977); Slominski v. Employment Div., 77 Or.App. 142, 147, 711 P.2d 215 (1985); Louderback v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Rev. et al., 48 Pa.Commw. 501, 505, 409 A.2d 1198 (1980); Gilbert v. Dept. Employment Security, 139 Vt. 24, 25, 421 A.2d 1295 (1980); Jennings v. Employment Secu......
-
Sulat v. Board of Review
...Goralski v. Comm., Unemploy. Comp. Bd. of Rev., 48 Pa.Cmwlth 39, 408 A.2d 1178 (1979); see also Louderback v. Comm., Unemploy. Comp. Bd. of Rev. 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 501, 409 A.2d 1198 (1979). In this context, we construe the disqualifying language in N.J.S.A. 43:21-4(g)(1) and its federal equival......
-
Board of Education v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd.
...work and thus ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits during this time...."Similarly, in Louderback v. Com., Unemploy. Comp. Bd. of R. (1980) 48 Pa.Cmwlth. 501, 409 A.2d 1198, where the court denied a substitute teacher's claim on the "implied agreement" rationale, the court, at p......
-
Elias–clavet v. Bd. of Review
...accept that offer expressly or imply his or her acceptance through silence. See Louderback v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa.Commw. 501, 502–06, 409 A.2d 1198, 1199–1200 (1980) (absent evidence of substantial reason for believing individual will not be rehired......