Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Raymond Walker, No. B-129006.
Carrie Menkel-Meadow, with her Ira Silverstein, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, 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 President Judge Bowman.
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 523]
This is an appeal filed by Raymond Walker from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits for the period January 25, 1975 through April 5, 1975. Walker was denied unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to 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), which provides in pertinent part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
Walker was employed by Spectrum, Inc., as a maintenance man for approximately 18 months prior to the severance of the employment relationship on December 19, 1974.
By a letter dated December 1, 1974, Walker submitted his resignation, effective December 31, 1974, citing a "conflict of interest in employment" as his reason for leaving. Never fully explained on the record, this "conflict of interest" revolved around domestic problems arising out of Walker's shift assignments
[ 27 Pa. Commw. Page 524]
and those of his wife at her job. On December 18, 1974, Walker met with his employer and attempted to rescind his resignation. The employer refused to allow the rescission because it had allegedly committed itself to a replacement for Walker.
It is the law of Pennsylvania that a resignation, later revoked, is a voluntary termination of employment if the employer has taken steps to replace the employee before revocation. Soyster v. Unemployment Compensation Board, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 547, 180 A.2d 123 (1962). The appellant contends that Soyster, by implication, mandates that an employee be allowed to withdraw a resignation if the employer has not yet begun the process of choosing a replacement. In such a case, termination would be a discharge and not a voluntary quit.*fn1 Walker further contends that, in this case, the only reason for refusing to allow rescission of the resignation was that he had filed a complaint against Spectrum with the Human ...