Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Robert J. Bannon, No. B-128804.
Robert G. Bannon, appellant, for himself.
Charles G. Hasson, 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. and Wilkinson, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 633]
Claimant appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed the order of the referee denying claimant benefits.
Claimant was last employed as a Sales Representative for American Tobacco Company (a division of American Brands), a position he held for more than fourteen years. Some time prior to his last day of employment, which was April 25, 1975, claimant approached the National Sales Manager, explaining that he would have it "pretty rough" continuing employment obligations since his twelve (12) year-old son would be moving into his home (sometime in June, 1975). It appears that claimant traveled approximately one (1) week per month in the performance of his job and that such traveling would cause him difficulty when he became responsible for the everyday care of his son. Claimant started the conversation with the National Sales Manager in order to ascertain whether any other position might be available to him in the same company. In response to his question claimant was told that there were no other positions and that he ought to go elsewhere and do some other type of work.
After a later discussion with another supervisor at which time claimant was told of the possibility of
[ 26 Pa. Commw. Page 634]
his being laid off or fired, claimant tendered his resignation, effective June 6, 1975. This resignation was accelerated to April 25, 1975, since it was the belief of the company that claimant would no longer be able to travel for them.
The Bureau of Employment Security concluded that claimant's reason for voluntarily leaving his work was not "cause of a compelling and necessitous nature" within Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). However, in the referee's decision, which was affirmed by the Board, claimant was found ineligible because his termination was due to a "marital, filial or other domestic obligation," within the purview of Section 402(b)(2), 43 P.S. § 802(b)(2).*fn1 We agree and, therefore, affirm.
Section 402(b)(2) under discussion in the instant case was exhaustively reviewed by this court in the case of Crumbling v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 14 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 546, 322 A.2d 746 (1974), and we find that case to be controlling here. In Crumbling, supra, we held that:
"This provision has been consistently construed to negate, as grounds for a 'necessitous and compelling' cause under Section 402(b)(1), a voluntary termination attributable to such domestic obligations as the necessity of caring for ill family members or small children. [Citations ...