Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Joan D. Manjares, No. B-119453.
Joseph W. Frank, Jr., with him Brickley, Frank & Kerwick, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Israel Packel, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 318]
This is an appeal by Joan D. Manjares from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which disallowed an appeal under the provisions of Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 822.
The issue is whether the unemployment of Joan D. Manjares resulted from action of her employer or was due to her "voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature." If the latter, she is not entitled to compensation by the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1).
Mrs. Manjares was employed as a secretary for Chapel Hill Manufacturing Company. She was paid a weekly salary of $150 for her services and had been so employed for approximately four years prior to March 21, 1973, her final day of employment. On March 19, 1973, she asked one of the two partners, who owned and directed the operations of the company, whether she could be absent from work on March 22 and March 23. This partner gave conditional approval by informing her that she could be absent from work as requested, provided that such absence did not conflict with the plans of the other partner. Mrs. Manjares was instructed to inquire of the other partner for final approval.
On March 20, 1973, Mrs. Manjares spoke with the other partner about the matter and he gave approval conditioned on her arranging for someone to answer the phone during her absence. On March 21, 1973, one of the partners informed her that the person that she had secured to answer the phone was not acceptable and
[ 15 Pa. Commw. Page 319]
that she could not be excused from working the following two days. She was further informed that, if she did not work on March 22 and March 23, she should not return to work thereafter.
Mrs. Manjares became, according to her testimony, "emotionally upset" and left the office of her employer at 11:30 a.m. on March 21, 1973, and never returned. Her application for unemployment compensation was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee, for the reason that her unemployment was due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law and, absent fraud, a determination as to whether the Board's findings*fn1 are supported by the evidence. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973). Whenever one becomes unemployed by a voluntary termination of his work, he assumes the burden of showing that such termination was with cause of a necessitous and ...