Claimant was employed for about six years as a stenographer and typist for a chemical company. She regarded herself as a "chemical stenographer". When she left this employment due to pregnancy she was receiving $58 a week. When she returned to the labor market she filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, and four months later she was offered employment as a stenographer with an electrometallurgical company at $180 a month. The "going rate" for experienced stenographers in the area was then $40 to $45 a week. Claimant refused the offer because she was dissatisfied with the salary and objected to traveling half an hour by bus, and was declared ineligible for benefits. This determination has been reversed by the appeal board because claimant's training and experience as a "chemical" stenographer entitled her to seek employment "at a skill comparable with her previous employment." That the full utilization of all skills is not the effective test to be applied under the statute, but rather the availability of work for which the claimant is fitted by training and experience, is being made plain by a series of judicial interpretations of which Matter of Delgado ( Corsi) ( 278 App. Div. 237), Matter of Strazza ( Corsi) ( 278 App. Div. 103 6), and Matter of De Bruyne ( Corsi) ( 278 App. Div. 1036) are examples. Decision of the appeal board reversed, on the law, and the determination of the Industrial Commissioner reinstated. Foster, P.J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ., concur.