Appeal, No. 98, Oct. T., 1958, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, October 11, 1957, No. B-45695, in re claim of Abad D. Martinez. Decision reversed.
Abad D. Martinez, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ.
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 51]
This is an appeal by claimant from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying compensation on the ground that claimant was disqualified under section 402 (b) of the Law, 43 PS § 802 (b). This section provides:
"An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -...
"(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature,..."
The facts are not in dispute. The question presented to us is whether on the basis of these facts the board
[ 186 Pa. Super. Page 52]
properly concluded that claimant's unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. This is a question of law. Labor and Industry Department v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 518, 520, 521, 3 A.2d 211; Vernon Unemployment Compensation Case, 164 Pa. Superior Ct. 131, 133, 63 A.2d 383.
Claimant was last employed by Stone Container Corporation of Philadelphia; his last day of work was April 27, 1957. He had been employed by that firm as a machine operator for eight years prior thereto. On his last night of work claimant informed his foreman that he was going to Puerto Rico to visit his elderly mother who had sustained an accident; the foreman told claimant that it was "all right." The foreman, however, apparently had no authority to grant a leave of absence. Claimant left Philadelphia on Sunday night, April 28, 1957, for Puerto Rico. On April 30, 1957, he wrote two letters; one in Spanish to his wife, and another in English to the plant manager explaining the emergency situation and his intention to return to work in two or three weeks. Unfortunately the letters were placed in the wrong envelopes with the result that the letter to claimant's wife was received by the plant manager and the other letter by his wife. The envelope received by the plant manager on May 2, 1957, also contained a slip of paper requesting that claimant's check be sent to him at the Puerto Rico address. The plant manager, realizing what had happened, personally ...