Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KEISLING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE. (06/13/62)

June 13, 1962

KEISLING UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.


Appeal, No. 124, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-69209, in re claim of Raymond F. Keisling. Decision affirmed.

COUNSEL

Raymond F. Keisling, appellant, in propria persona.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.

Author: Woodside

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 346]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

The claimant in this unemployment compensation case was denied benefits by the bureau, the referee and the board because his unemployment was due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. See § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). He contends that he did not voluntarily leave work, and that

[ 198 Pa. Super. Page 347]

    even if he did, it was with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.

The claimant was hired by the Benefit Association of Railway Employees as a manager trainee in August of 1959 and was assigned to the Pittsburgh office. The home office of his employer is in Chicago. He knew at the time he was hired that he might be transferred there at the end of his training period. Last summer, the claimant was informed that he was to be transferred to Chicago, and would receive an increase in the salary of $410 per month which he had been receiving. Upon receipt of the information, he wrote to his employer that without a definite salary increase of $350 per month he "could not possibly leave Pittsburgh." Quite understandably, his employer replied that he was "somewhat more than flabbergasted". He told the claimant that the increased salary would be $75 per month, and asked him to "report to the Home Office as directed." The employer advised the claimant that if this was unacceptable, he should resign effective August 1, 1961. The claimant replied that "the increase is not acceptable" and that he was "resigning as of August 1, 1961."

The claimant could have continued his employment in Chicago at a salary of $485 per month. He chose to resign. His unemployment was due to "voluntarily leaving work." Lirakis Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Superior Ct. 342, 168 A.2d 647 (1961); Zahorchak Unemployment Compensation Case, 191 Pa. Superior Ct. 229, 156 A.2d 367 (1959); Kinter Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Superior Ct. 529, 119 A.2d 639 (1956).

Having voluntarily terminated his employment, the burden is upon the claimant to establish that his cause for doing so was of a necessitous and compelling nature. Fenstersheib Unemployment Compensation Case, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.