—claimant was' unavailable for work'when she became unable to work the third shift, and limited her availability to the other two, because of the need to care for her four children

The reference to'involuntary unemployment'in the legislative statement of policy, whatever a sociologist, philosopher, or theologian might say, has been interpreted not to embrace such personal circumstances.

It is true that unavailability for work for some personal reasons not having to do with matters of conscience or religion has been held to be a basis of disqualification for benefits.

C] laimant being unable to find anyone else to care for her children, was compelled to give up her work and remain at home and care for them. She has been offered work on the third shift at Judson on several occasions since quitting but has refused each time, stating that she was only available for work on the first or second shifts

—it was held that the claimant was unavailable for work where it appeared that, because of considerations personal to her, she became unavailable for employment on the third shift upon which she had been working.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court stated that the term "involuntary unemployment" as used in the declaration of policy "had reference to unemployment resulting from a failure of industry to provide stable employment", and that the statute was not intended "to provide benefits for a worker compelled to give up his job solely because of a change in his personal …

South Carolina would deny unemployment benefits to a mother unavailable for work on Saturdays because she was unable to get a babysitter

For example, in determining the eligibility for benefits of ai On Jan. 2, 1944, the Supreme Court of South Carolina upheld this decision.

For a case adopting the "fault" approach to a work refusal on the ground that the state statute contained an experience rating provision

—holding that a mother' s inability to find child caretakers did not entitle her to unemployment benefits