Richland School Dist. v. Com., Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 23 May 1983 |
| Citation | 459 A.2d 1358,74 Pa.Cmwlth. 413 |
| Parties | , 11 Ed. Law Rep. 236 RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent, Donna Hoza, Intervenor. RICHLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent, Judith A. Shomo, Intervenor. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Ralph F. Kraft, Kraft & Rizzo, Johnstown, for petitioner.
William K. Eckel, Johnstown, for Donna Hoza.
No appearance for respondent.
Before CRUMLISH, President Judge, and MacPHAIL and DOYLE, JJ.
Richland School District (District) brings a consolidated appeal from two orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed and adopted the decisions of a referee granting unemployment compensation benefits to Donna Hoza and Judith Shomo (Claimants), furloughed professional employees, for the weeks between the end of one school year and the beginning of the next successive school year.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Claimant Hoza was employed as an art instructor employed by the District for the past eight years. She was a tenured teacher on a nine month contract which commenced on July 1, 1980 and expired on June 30, 1981. Claimant Hoza received her last pay on June 11, 1981, for the period through June 30, 1981. Claimant Shomo wasclassified as a preferred substitute. 1 She worked as a Health and Physical Education teacher for the district from January of 1981 until June 5, 1981.
Claimants Hoza and Shomo were notified by letter, respectively, on May 29, 1981 and May 8, 1981, that they would be suspended as professional employees because of a substantial decline in student enrollment in the District.
On June 4, 1981, Claimants received the following written notice from the District notifying them that their names would be placed on substitute teacher call lists:
In view of your recent suspension as a professional employe of the Richland School District, this letter shall serve as a reasonable assurance that your name will appear on the approved Substitute Teacher listing for the 1981-82 school year.
You will, accordingly, be called to work in the District as your services are needed.
Claimant Shomo was offered a position 2 as a librarian, which she accepted on July 28, 1981, to be effective at the start of the 1981-82 school year with full salary and benefits.
The Office of Employment Security (Office) ruling under Section 402.1(1) 3 of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2829, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802.1(1) held that Claimants were ineligible for benefits because they had a reasonable assurance of performing services for the District in the next school year. The referee affirmed the Office's determination in part and reversed in part. The Board then affirmed the referee.
The Board, in both cases, denied benefits for the waiting week ending June 13 and compensable week ending June 20, 1981 through June 30, 1981 because under their previous contracts the Claimants were paid up until June 30, 1981. In the case of Claimant Hoza, however, the Board allowed benefits beginning July 1, 1981 on the basis that she did not have a reasonable assurance of performing services for the District in the upcoming year. Concerning Claimant Shomo, the Board held that she was entitled to benefits beginning July 1, 1981 through August 1, 1981, reasoning that on June 15, 1981, Claimant Shomo did not have a reasonable assurance of work as required by Section 402.1(1) of the Law. Benefits were denied from the date of August 2, 1981, and subsequent thereto.
The term reasonable assurance is not defined in the statute. This Court, however, has interpreted it to require, absent a formal agreement to rehire, "objective evidence of mutual commitment between the teacher and employer to recall the former [so that] the teacher has a reasonable expectation of returning to employment in the next academic term." Goralski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 39, 41-42, 408 A.2d 1178, 1180 (1979)
This does not require a guarantee of re-employment, but rather a reasonable assurance that the teacher will be hired during the subsequent term. Id. What constitutes a reasonable assurance must be determined by the Board based upon its examination of all the relevant facts. Bornstein v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 521, 451 A.2d 1053 (1982).
As we have noted in Bornstein, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at ---, 451 A.2d at 1055, "[a] number of factors have been considered relevant in determining reasonable assurance: employment history, an offer to place a claimant on the substitute list and the acceptance of said offer, and placement of a claimant on the substitute list being clearly communicated by the employer to the claimant." (Citations omitted).
Claimants, as intervenors in this appeal, contend that unilateral placement of their names on the substitute list, with no assurance as to how many, if any, days of employment would be offered to them, does not constitute reasonable assurance of re-employment.
We have already stated that Section 402.1(1) does not require a guarantee that Claimants will be re-employed. Goralski. Nor does it require the assurance of how many days employment would be offered. The nature of a substitute teacher position is inherently indefinite since it depends on the occurrence of unforseen vacancies in the teaching faculty, however, the employment possibilities of a substitute teacher remain reasonably assured so long as the Claimants intend to do the work and the district expects to offer the work as it becomes available. Louderback v. Unemployment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slippery Rock Area v. Unem. Comp. Bd.
...in the provision. Neshaminy; Board of Education, School District of Philadelphia; Richland School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 74 Pa.Cmwlth. 413, 459 A.2d 1358 (1983). The circumstances in the present case are totally distinct from those in Popowsky and Elite Indus......
-
Slippery Rock Area v. Unemployment Comp.
...year to determine whether she had reasonable assurance pursuant to Section 402.1(1). See Richland Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 74 Pa. Cmwlth. 413, 459 A.2d 1358, 1360-61 (1983); see also Neshaminy Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 57 Pa. Cmwlth. 543, 426 A.2d 12......
-
Davis v. District of Columbia
...applies to substitute teachers employed by the District of Columbia public school system. See Richland School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 1358, 1360 (Pa. Cmwlth.1983); Patrick v. Board of Review, 171 N.J.Super. 424, 425-26, 409 A.2d 819, 820 (1979) (per c......
-
Brannum v. Dc Public Schools, No. 05-AA-1143.
...is not a guarantee that one will be rehired, e.g., Richland School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, ... 459 A.2d [1358,] ... 1360 [(Pa. Commw.Ct.1983)]; rather, it is a reasonable assurance, "in good faith[, that the parties] expect the substitute employment relationsh......