decided: June 29, 1978.
MARY A. SCHUMACHER, PETITIONER
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT
Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary A. Schumacher, No. B-138194.
Richard Brown, with him R. Kirkland McQuiddy, and, of counsel, R. Kirkland McQuiddy and Associates, P.C., for petitioner.
Michael Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Rogers and DiSalle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr.
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 361]
Mary A. Schumacher (Claimant) appeals a determination of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits.
Claimant was employed by American Olean Tile (Employer) as a "sorter" until August 6, 1976. It is undisputed that two weeks prior to that date Claimant voluntarily submitted her notice of intention to resign, effective August 6. The referee found that Claimant's notice was submitted due to her dissatisfaction with working conditions. The referee concluded, based upon a consideration of the circumstances leading to her resignation, that Claimant was ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897,
[ 36 Pa. Commw. Page 362]
Claimant contends that her testimony before the referee indicating the difficulty she experienced working with her "group leader" made her job intolerable, and is sufficient to meet her burden of proving the compelling and necessitous cause for her termination. We cannot agree.
Undisputed testimony indicates that the group leader in question was, at the time of Claimant's resignation, no longer Claimant's permanent group leader but, as Claimant knew, was assigned to that group on a temporary basis only when necessitated by employe absences. Additionally, the record indicates that Claimant had, in fact, been offered a different position with Employer on one such occasion when this group leader was on temporary assignment to Claimant's group. Moreover, Claimant's own testimony belies her contention that working conditions caused her termination. In response to questions concerning the circumstances leading to her resignation, Claimant testified that her foreman had asked her to reconsider her decision. Her testimony indicates she informed the foreman that she would rescind her termination only if the plant superintendent agreed to expunge a notation on her record of a warning she had received for walking off the job without excuse sometime earlier. We cannot, therefore, conclude that the Board erred in upholding the referee's determination that Claimant failed to meet its burden of proving a necessitous and compelling cause justifying her termination.
And Now, this 29th day of June, 1978, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.
© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.