Appeal, No. 140, Oct. T., 1958, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-46177, in re claim of Albert Cupo. Decision affirmed.
Albert Cupo, 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.
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 286]
In this unemployment compensation case benefits were denied to the claimant-appellant by the Bureau of Employment Security, the referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, for the reason that he left his employment voluntarily without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and was therefore barred from benefits under the provisions of § 402(b) of the act. Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended, 43 PS § 802(b), 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
[ 187 Pa. Super. Page 287]
compelling nature ... Provided, That no employe shall be deemed to be ineligible under this subsection where as a condition of continuing in employment such employe would be required ... to accept wages ... not desired by a majority of the employes in the establishment or the occupation ... and that in determining whether or not an employe has left his work voluntarily without good cause, the department shall give consideration to the same factors, insofar as they are applicable, provided, with respect to the determination of suitable work under section four (t); ...."
Section 4(t), as amended, 43 PS § 753(t), is as follows: "'Suitable Work' means all work which the employe is capable of performing. In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the department shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness, prior training and experience ...."
Since the claimant admitted terminating his employment relationship, the only question is whether he did so without cause of a ...