Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Ernesto Rizzitano, No. B-134218.
Louis DeLuca, for petitioner.
Michael Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Wilkinson, Jr. and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
This is an unemployment compensation appeal by the claimant in which the Bureau of Employment Security and the Referee refused benefits under the provisions of 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), on the ground that the claimant voluntarily quit his job. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review disallowed further appeal pursuant to Section 502 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 822. We affirm the denial of benefits.
The claimant was employed for four years by the F & E Trucking Company as a body and fender repairman at a rate of $175.00 per week. This employment was terminated on November 5, 1975, and the claimant subsequently applied for unemployment benefits.
For a period of approximately one month prior to the date of termination, the manager of F & E Trucking Company had urged the claimant to increase his production. The manager stated that he was losing money on his jobs and that in order to make a profit
the claimant would have to complete his work assignments within a shorter period of time.
The claimant stated that while he did his best to increase his work output, he was doing as much as he could and was still unable to meet the demands of his employer. The claimant then terminated his employment, believing that because he could not increase his productivity he would be discharged from his job.
The record in this case reveals that at no time did the employer expressly state that he was discharging the claimant because the ...