Section 29(1)(e)
REFUSAL OF WORK, Attachment to labor market, Restrictions on availability, Substantial field of employment, Burden of proof
CITE AS: Pritchett (PCHA Outer Drive Hospital) 1982 BR 61289 (B78-52550).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Mamie Pritchett
Employer: PCHA Outer Drive Hospital
Docket No: B78 52550 61289
BOARD OF REVIEW HOLDING: Good cause for refusal of work may be found where a claimant can demonstrate that there exists no reasonable alternative means for discharging domestic duties, such as child care, during the hours of the proffered work.
FACTS: Claimant, a nurse's aide on the midnight shift, became unemployed for lack of work. The employer offered weekend work on the afternoon shift from 3:00 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. Claimant had three children and two grandchildren residing with her. The eighteen year old was subject to seizures and could not be left unattended; the seventeen year old had a weekend job and could not be home at night until 9:30 P.M. Claimant was separated from her husband, who was also an invalid.
DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for refusal of work nor ineligible for benefits under availability provisions.
RATIONALE: The Board of Review followed the rationale of the California Supreme Court in Sanchez v Unemp. Ins. Appeals Bd., Sup., 141 Cal. Rptr. 146 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 1978) wherein that Court said: "We conclude that a claimant who is parent or guardian of a minor has 'good cause' for refusing employment which conflicts with parental activities reasonably necessary for the care or education of the minor if there exist no reasonable alternative means of discharging those responsibilities."
As for eligibility, the Board of Review cited the Court's holding in Sanchez, supra, that: "Availability for work ... requires no more than (1) that an individual claimant be willing to accept suitable work which he has no good cause for refusing and (2) that the claimant thereby make himself available to a substantial field of employment " 141 Cal. Rptr. at 154. The Commission did not establish that Claimant had limited herself to an insubstantial field of employment.
The decision of the Referee is reversed by a majority of the full Board of Review.
11/90
5, 6, 14, 15, d3:NA