## Facts

- William Knox worked about 17 years for H. K. Porter Company until the plant closed, after which he received unemployment-compensation benefits.
- While unemployed, Knox was referred by the state employment office to apply for work substantially similar to his prior job.
- Knox interviewed with the prospective employer and stated that he might be recalled by the successor to his former plant and, if recalled, would return there.
- The prospective employer did not hire Knox.
- The agency and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review treated Knox’s statements as conduct discouraging the employer from hiring him, equivalent to refusing suitable work without good cause, and terminated benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether a claimant “discourages” a prospective employer, amounting to a disqualifying refusal of suitable work, by stating in an interview that he might be recalled elsewhere and would leave if recalled.
2. Whether the referred position constituted “suitable work” such that discouraging conduct could trigger disqualification.
3. Whether the Board’s finding of discouragement and lack of good cause was supported by substantial evidence and free of legal error.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s order disqualifying Knox from further benefits.
- The court held that Knox’s interview statements reasonably conveyed he would treat the job as temporary and would leave upon recall, discouraging the employer from hiring him.
- The court concluded such discouraging conduct was properly treated as a refusal of suitable work without good cause.
- The court deferred to the Board’s fact-finding because it was supported by substantial evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A claimant may be disqualified for refusing an offer of suitable work without good cause, including conduct functionally equivalent to a refusal.
- Interview behavior reasonably calculated to make an employer unwilling to hire the claimant may constitute a constructive refusal of suitable work, even without an explicit verbal refusal.
- Statements suggesting imminent departure for another employer may be treated as discouraging conduct when their natural and probable effect is to deter hiring.
- Reviewing courts do not reweigh evidence in unemployment-compensation appeals; they examine whether the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the law was correctly applied.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the termination of benefits because Knox’s statements during the referred interview discouraged the prospective employer from hiring him, which the law treats as refusing suitable work without good cause, and the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence.


Knox v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 315 A.2d 915 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1974)