Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Patricia Elaine Pianelli, No. B-128231.
Richard J. Shiroff, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sandra Christianson, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 497]
Patricia Elaine Pianelli (claimant) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits. This denial was based on Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn1 (Law), 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1) which provides, inter alia, as follows:
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 498]
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. . . . And provided further . . . that in determining whether or not an employe has left his work voluntarily without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, the department shall give consideration to the same factors, insofar as they are applicable, provided, with respect to the determination of suitable work under section four(t). . . .
The claimant had been performing two job functions (export clerk and secretary) at a weekly salary of $130.00. When another employee quit, she assumed his job functions (domestic clerk and dispatcher) at a new salary of $160.00 per week. She subsequently requested the hiring of an additional employee to relieve her of some of her duties, and, when such an employee was hired and her salary was reduced to $135.00 per week, she terminated her employment. Because it is clear that the claimant voluntarily terminated her employment, the issue presented here is whether or not she did so for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
It was the claimant's burden, of course, to prove that her voluntary termination was for suitable cause, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Perry, 22 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 429, 349 A.2d 531 (1975), and where, as here, the decision of the Board is adverse to the party with the burden of proof, our scope of review is limited. Absent fraud or errors of law, we are free only to determine whether or not the Board's findings are consistent with each other and with the Board's conclusions of law and whether or not the decision can be sustained without a capricious
[ 28 Pa. Commw. Page 499]
disregard of competent evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Patsy, 21 Pa. ...