442 A.2d 46
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.Argued November 19, 1981
March 11, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Students.
1. The determination of whether an applicant for unemployment compensation benefits is a student and therefore ineligible depends on the duration of the applicant’s full-time employment, his support obligations, his economic requirements and his efforts to obtain full-time employment. [277]
Argued November 19, 1981, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges WILLIAMS, JR. and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2204 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Gary M. Villante, No. B-176040.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant
Page 277
appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Vacated and remanded.
Bruce P. Friedman, Cohn Orlowitz, for petitioner.
William Kennedy, Associate Counsel, with him Elsa D. Newman-Silverstine, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner,
Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.
OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISH, JR., March 11, 1982:
Gary Villante appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order which found him ineligible for benefits under Section 401(d)[1] of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We vacate and remand.
Villante worked full-time for Gould, Inc., on the 4 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. shift for the two years prior to his layoff. In the second year of his employment, he enrolled as a day student at Penn State. When he was laid off, without fault of his own, the Board denied benefits concluding that he was primarily a student and thus unavailable for work.
Is Villante’s “primary purpose . . . to work, rather than to obtain an education while working to pay for that education,”Ettorre v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commw. 315, 317, 413 A.2d 6, 8 (1980)? We must in our determination consider a number of factors: duration of full-time employment, support obligations, economic requirements and efforts to obtain full-time employment. Id. at 317, 413 A.2d at 8.
This record is bare, providing only the uncontradicted testimony of Villante. Based on the findings
Page 278
made from this record, we are unable to determine whether Villante’s primary goal was to work or to obtain an education. We must remand for more adequate findings on which to perform our appellate review, Falciglia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commw. 34, 422 A.2d 1204
(1980).
This case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-176040, dated September 25, 1979, is vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Judge PALLADINO did not participate in the decision in this case.