Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Catherine Rooney, No. B-133424.
David Kraut, for petitioner.
Susan Shinkman, Assistant Attorney General, with her 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 Crumlish, Jr.
Catherine Rooney (Claimant) appeals a determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1).
Claimant was last employed by Celotex Corporation (Employer) on October 3, 1975. On November 5, 1975, the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) awarded her unemployment compensation benefits. Upon Employer's appeal the referee reversed the Bureau and disallowed benefits. Claimant appealed this denial to the Board which affirmed the referee's decision and likewise denied benefits.
Claimant had been employed as a payroll clerk since February 18, 1974. According to her own testimony, she often worked during her breaks and lunch hours in order to complete her payroll responsibilities. Claimant's duties also included occasional service as a switchboard operator and receptionist. In addition, Employer had given her training as an accounts payable clerk.
On October 2, 1975, Claimant was informed by her supervisor that, in addition to her regular duties, she was to begin training to work on freight bills the following day. According to Claimant's testimony, on October 3 she told her supervisor that, due to her other responsibilities, she had no time to do the freight bill
work. Despite her protestation, he insisted upon the additional assignment to which Claimant reluctantly consented. The supervisor then added that she would have to sweep or scrub the floors if he insisted. Claimant testified that he then informed her that she had the option of doing "one of two things, sit down and take it or get out." Claimant's supervisor denied making this last statement. In response to this conversation, Claimant became emotionally upset and left her job without notifying anyone in management of her departure.
Claimant contends on appeal that the Board erred in failing to find that she had terminated her employment for a necessitous and compelling cause. Section ...