RICHARD W. GOINGS, Appellant,
 vs.

STATE OF OHIO UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, ET

AL., Appellees

CASE NO. 84-CA-63
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT, GREENE COUNTY
Slip Opinion
November 5, 1984

COUNSEL

 

GARY R. SCHAENGOLD, of Schaengold & Grove, 711 Hulman Building, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorney for Appellant.
NICHOLAS L. GERREN, 604 American Building, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorney for Appellees.

 JUDGES

 

BROGAN, P.J., and WILSON, J., concur.
 AUTHOR: KERNS

 OPINION

 

 

 
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County affirming a decision of the Board of Review of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, which held that the claimant, Richard Goings, was disqualified from participation in the unemployment compensation fund for refusing "suitable work" within the contemplation of Section 4141.29, Revised Code.

 

According to the facts, Goings was employed by the Springfield Local Board of Education as an Assistant Elementary School Principal from August 20, 1979 to July 3, 1981 at an annual salary of $26,750.00, but on April 1, 1981, Mr. Goings had been informed by the Board of Education that his contract would not be renewed because of the closing of three schools.

 

On May 1, 1981, Goings was offered a contract to teach an eighth grade science class at an annual salary of $20,500.00, but he refused the offer for the reason that he considered the teaching position a significant demotion from his previous administrative position. Furthermore, Mr. Goings informed the Board of Education that he had previously taught fifth and sixth grade classes but that he did not feel qualified to teach a course in eighth grade general science. However, the evidence discloses further that the claimant had a teaching certificate which qualified him to teach the course, and at the hearing of the matter, Mr. Goings admitted that he would have accepted the teaching position if the salary had been the same as the administrative position.

 

In the appeal to this court, the appellant contends, for his only assignment of error, that "the decision of the Board of Review and the Common Pleas Court is unlawful, unreasonable, and against the manifest weight of the evidence".

 

Ordinarily, a person cannot refuse an offer of "suitable work" without good cause (Section 4141.29(D)(2)(b), Revised Code), but no individual otherwise qualified to receive benefits may be refused if the remuneration, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality (Section 4141.29(E)(4), Revised Code). Furthermore, in determining whether any work is suitable, the administrator is required to consider the degree of risk to the claimant's health, safety, and morals, his physical fitness for the work, his prior training and experience, the length of his unemployment, the distance of the available work from his residence, and his prospects for obtaining work (Section 4141.29(F), Revised Code).

 

In the application of the foregoing statutory provisions, the question of whether work is suitable poses a question for the trier of the facts. Pennington v. Dudley, 10 Ohio St. 2d 90; Brown-Brockmeyer v. Roach, 148 Ohio St. 511. Furthermore, it is fundamental that the standard of review outlined in Section 4141.28(O), Revised Code, prevents this court from reinterpreting the evidence and substituting its judgment for that of the Board of Review. Simon v. Lake Geauga Printing Co., 69 Ohio St. 2d 41; Kilgore v. Board of Review, 2 Ohio App. 2d 69.

 

Here, the reduction in pay was substantial, but this fact was not determinative in deciding whether the work was suitable, and the evidence otherwise shows that the claimant was qualified to teach elementary school and that the salary offered to him was comparable or higher than the usual salaries for similar positions in the locality. Furthermore, the evidence fails to disclose that the claimant had any objection to the conditions of employment other than the salary. See, Pennington v. Dudley, 10 Ohio St. 2d 90 (15% reduction in salary); Zanesville v. Bailey, 168 Ohio St. 351 (10% reduction in salary).

 

With regard for the manifest purpose of the unemployment compensation law, which is to assist those who are involuntarily unemployed, and in consideration of all of the evidence, we cannot say that the decision of the Board was "unlawful, unreasonable or against the weight of the evidence". See, Vest v. Board of Review, 93 Ohio App. 504; Kilgore v. Board of Review, 2 Ohio App. 2d 69; Section 4141.28(O), Revised Code. Hence, the alleged error is overruled.

 

The judgment will be affirmed.