Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of James G. Volk, No. B-131091.
Louise A. Howells, for appellant.
George Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Mencer, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 530]
The Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denied benefits on the basis of a lack of compelling and necessitous reason for voluntary termination*fn1 to James G. Volk (Claimant). We reverse the Board.
Claimant was last employed by General Electric Company (G.E.) as a wheelabrater and grinder earning a wage of $3.67 1/2 per hour for the period April 8, 1974 up to and including his last day of employment on March 27, 1975. On the final day of his employment, Claimant's foreman informed him that he was to receive a rating of "job failure" due to his unsatisfactory performance. In response, Claimant requested an "open transfer" in which he would have ten days to find other work within the G.E. plant. The open transfer policy of G.E. provides that in the event that an individual is unable to secure another mutually satisfactory position in the plant within the ten day limit, he is considered to have voluntarily severed his employment relationship. Claimant found no position within ten days and subsequently sought benefits which were denied by the Bureau of Employment Security. Upon appeal, the referee reversed, granting benefits, and in turn, the Board reversed pursuant to Section 402(b)(1); hence, the instant appeal.
The essence of Claimant's appeal to this Court is his challenge to the asserted lack of substantial evidence
[ 29 Pa. Commw. Page 531]
bottoming the Board's findings of fact numbers five and six, which state:
5. The claimant was aware that if he could not locate other employment within the company during the ten-day period allowed, he could be considered to have voluntarily resigned.
6. Continued work was available to claimant had he not chosen to exercise his open transfer option.
A review of the record belies the argument that Finding No. 5 is unsupported by substantial evidence. With regard to that finding, the ...