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.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD REVIEW v. ROBERT F. GOCHENAUER (08/05/75)

decided: August 5, 1975.

UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW
v.
ROBERT F. GOCHENAUER, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert F. Gochenauer, No. B-123149.

COUNSEL

James Breslauer, with him Virginia S. Criste, for appellant.

Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Mencer. Dissenting Opinion by President Judge Bowman. Judge Wilkinson joins in this dissent.

Author: Mencer

[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 25]

This is an appeal by Robert F. Gochenauer (claimant) from the denial of his claim for unemployment compensation benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board).

Claimant was last employed by Plain and Fancy Egg Ranch (employer) as a truck driver. He had been on the job approximately four months and his last day of work was May 3, 1974. During the first three days of his last week of work claimant had worked 17 1/2 hours, 18 hours, and 12 1/2 hours, respectively. He had Thursday, May 2, 1974, off. On Friday, May 3, 1974, claimant called his employer before he left on his route and complained that there were extra stops on the route which made the route too long. The employer withdrew these stops and claimant proceeded on his route. About 10:30 that morning claimant again called the employer and advised him that his route was still too long and that he was quitting and returning the truck to the employer's premises. Claimant then returned his truck, talked with the employer, and left the premises.

On May 16, 1974, claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation with the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau). His application was denied on the basis that his unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, such conduct rendering him ineligible to receive benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act).*fn1 Subsequent appeals by claimant to a referee and the Board resulted in an affirmance of the Bureau's determination, and claimant now appeals to us.

Our scope of review in this type of case, in which the decision of the Board is against the party having the

[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 26]

    burden of proof,*fn2 is limited to a determination of whether or not the Board's findings of fact are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law and order and whether they can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Crumbling v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 322 A.2d 746 (1974). Our careful reading of the record convinces us that the Board capriciously disregarded competent evidence in making its findings of fact. We therefore reverse.

The crux of this case is whether claimant voluntarily left his employment or his employment was terminated by his employer. The Board made two findings of fact on this point which read as follows:

"4. On May 3, 1974 claimant after leaving the company's premises and the company's truck stopped along the highway and decided to quit his employment because of the hours involved in his work.

"5. Claimant upon making his decision returned to the employer's premises without completing his trip and voluntarily terminated his employment."

In his testimony at the hearing before the referee, claimant admitted that he used the word "quit" but maintained that he directed this word only to the excessive hours he was working, not the job itself. He stated that excessive hours had been a subject of debate between his employer and himself for some time and that his actions on May 3, 1974 demonstrated only a refusal to work excessive hours. He testified that after returning his truck and discussing the situation with his employer on May 3, 1974, he left work with the understanding that

[ 21 Pa. Commw. Page 27]

    he was to call his employer the next morning to see whether he would get a route with less hours. He further stated that his wife called for him the next morning and was told that there was nothing for him. He then waited for a call until the following Tuesday, at which time he went to his employer's office. His employer then said he would call claimant on Thursday. When this call never came, claimant signed up for unemployment compensation.

Of course, since the Board, as the fact finder, had the duty to pass on claimant's credibility, it had the power to reject all of claimant's testimony when it was in conflict with the testimony of the employer or even when it stood uncontradicted. Our reading of the record, however, compels the conclusion that, although the employer insisted claimant "quit" his job, his testimony corroborates ...


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.