Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Edward Lee Savidge, No. B-125862.
C. Collins Brown, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 221]
This is an appeal by the Pennsylvania Power & Light Company (PP&L) from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) granting benefits to Edward Lee Savidge (claimant), a former PP&L employee.
[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 222]
The claimant was employed as a carryall operator at the Sunbury Steam Electric Station for four years prior to November 3, 1974, his last date of employment. He had given two weeks notice to PP&L that he would be leaving to accept more lucrative employment with his brother-in-law, an independent trucker, beginning November 4, 1974. The day before the claimant was scheduled to take the new position, he was told by his brother-in-law that the job had failed to materialize and that no work was presently available for him, but he left his employment as planned and subsequently filed for unemployment compensation benefits. These were granted by the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau), and PP&L appealed. Both a referee and the Board affirmed on the grounds that the claimant had voluntarily left work for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature within the meaning of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Act.*fn1
Our scope of review in unemployment compensation cases is confined to questions of law, and absent fraud, to a determination as to whether or not the Board's findings are supported by the evidence. Borman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 241, 316 A.2d 679 (1974).
The claimant admits that he voluntarily resigned from his job, and the only issue, therefore, is whether or not he did so with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. He has the burden of showing such cause, demonstrating that his conduct was consistent with ordinary common sense and prudence, being based on real, substantial,
[ 23 Pa. Commw. Page 223]
and reasonable factors, not on factors which are imaginary, trifling or whimsical. United States Steel Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 71, 333 A.2d 807 (1975).
The mere possibility of obtaining another job is insufficient to constitute good cause for voluntarily terminating one's employment. Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 166, 325 A.2d 320 (1974); Kowal Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Superior Ct. 621, 176 A.2d 151 (1961). However, the record in this case includes evidence which would support the Board's finding that the claimant had actually accepted employment with his brother-in-law at a higher rate of pay. The firm acceptance of other employment is a more compelling reason for terminating present employment than is the indefinite possibility of obtaining another job. In addition, the claimant's decision to leave employment with PP&L to take a higher paying position was certainly consistent with common sense and prudence. ...