Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of David E. Baird, No. B-126599-C.
Leonard Rubin, for appellant.
George O. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sandra S. Christianson, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 119]
David E. Baird filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits which was denied by the Bureau of Employment Security pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law),*fn1 which renders persons who voluntarily quit their jobs ineligible for benefits. A referee affirmed the Bureau after a hearing at which Baird alone appeared and was the sole witness. Baird appealed the referee's decision to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which, without taking additional testimony, reversed the referee and awarded benefits.
The employer then requested reconsideration of the Board's decision. The Board thereupon vacated its order and ordered a further hearing. Both Baird and a representative of his employer, Fogel Refrigeration Company, appeared.
At both hearings Baird testified that he quit his job as a refrigerator mechanic for two reasons: first,
[ 30 Pa. Commw. Page 120]
because his foreman constantly used offensive profanity; and second, because he was assigned additional duties without increased pay. At the first hearing Baird said that the chief shop steward told him "Dave, I don't know how anybody can stand his foul mouth," and that Bessie Bowden, an employe for over 20 years, told him that she was tempted to quit her employment because of the foreman's language. At the second hearing the employer's witness denied that the steward used foul or abusive language and offered into evidence without objection writings by the steward and Ms. Bowden contradicting Baird's testimony.
Baird said he was told to perform more work but that his suggestion that his salary be increased was refused. The employer's representative testified that the duties of which Baird complained were included in the job description of position,*fn2 that they were reasonable and that Baird's union had not supported his complaint about the work.
After the second hearing, the Board made the following somewhat meager findings of fact ...