March 20, 1963
STURZEBECKER UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION CASE.
Appeal, No. 12, March T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-57971-B, in re claim of Samuel Sturzebecker, Sr. Decision affirmed.
Samuel Sturzebecker, Sr., appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 334]
OPINION BY WATKINS, J.
In this unemployment compensation case the unemployment authorities disqualified the claimant for benefits by virtue of § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 802(b)(1).
Samuel Sturzebecker, Sr., the claimant, was last employed by K & K Motors, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, on March 22, 1960 as a sales manager, at a salary of $75 weekly plus commission of 2% on sales of new cars, 3% on used cars and 1% override on all sales. Because sales were unsatisfactory he was offered continued employment as a salesman at a guaranteed drawing account of $75 weekly plus commissions of 5% on new cars and 6% on used cars.He refused the offer and so became unemployed.
There was conflicting testimony concerning dissatisfaction with working conditions but the record is clear that the real problem was his dissatisfaction with the change from sales manager to salesman, with its new salary arrangements. It also appears from the record that it might have been possible for him to improve his income under the new offer but he refused to give the new arrangement a trial. This, in itself, is evidence of lack of good faith when, at the time, unemployment was his only alternative.
This claim was before this Court in 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 164, 169 A.2d 310 (1961) on appeal from the denial of benefits under § 501(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 PS § 821(e), in that he had failed to appeal from the bureau's decision within the
[ 200 Pa. Super. Page 335]
required statutory period. This Court remanded it to the Board for further testimony. The Board after hearing further testimony vacated its order under § 501(e), supra, but held him to be disqualified under § 402(b)(1) in that he voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
We agree with the board. His dissatisfaction with earnings under the position offered without giving it a fair trial did not place him in a position of being compelled to quit. Mollo Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Superior Ct. 86, 140 A.2d 354 (1958).
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.