Schwartz v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 15 November 1951
• Parties: SCHWARTZ v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

84 A.2d 364

169 Pa.Super. 620

SCHWARTZ v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

November 15, 1951

Rehearing Denied Dec. 4, 1951.

Dorothy Schwartz filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review rendered a decision dated March 29, 1951, Decision No B-24127, denying benefits and the claimant appealed, Appeal No. B-44-99-D-2985, opposed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The Superior Court No. 162 October Term 1951, Reno, J., held that a legal secretary, who in her early stages of pregnancy, remained away from work without requesting a leave of absence and without giving any indication of when she would return to work, was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.

Affirmed.

N. Carl Schwartz, Philadelphia, for appellant.

William L. Hammond, Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Robert E. Woodside, Atty. Gen., Bruce E. Cooper, Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS and ARNOLD, JJ.

RENO Judge.

The Board held appellant disqualified under the Unemployment Compensation Law, § 402(b), 43 P.S. § 802, which provides: ‘ An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week * * *

‘ In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without good cause: * * *.’ Her case is ruled by Flannick Unemployment Compensation Case, 168 Pa.Super. 606, 82 A.2d 671, and the Board's decision will be affirmed.

There were sharp contradictions in the testimony and the Board, which is the ultimate trier of the facts, determined the credibility of the witnesses, and resolved the conflicts. Its findings are supported by evidence, and we are bound by them. Unemployment Compensation Law, supra, § 510, 43 P.S. § 830.

The findings present this factual picture: Appellant, a secretary in a Philadelphia law office, was in the first stages of pregnancy and her attendance to work became irregular. During the week ending August 4, 1950, she worked only one day; was absent the entire week which began on August 7th; worked steadily for the two weeks which began on August 14th; and her last work day was August 25th. After that she never returned to work and did not notify her employer of the reason for her failure to do so. Her husband informed her employer that appellant was in New York City and did not know when she would return.

She returned to Philadelphia on Saturday, September 2nd; made no effort to return to work, although her physical condition would not have prevented it; failed, so the Board found, to ‘ notify the employer of her future work intentions' or request a leave of absence; and the day following Labor Day, on September 5th, filed her claim for compensation. Her claim that she had been discharged was not sustained by the Board and is not supported by substantial evidence.

Clearly her claim was invalid. The Law makes no provision for...