Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Cecile Arufo, No. B-140333.
Paulette E. Nachild, with her Richard P. Perna, for appellant.
Daniel Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas Devilbiss, Assistant Attorney General, Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Rogers, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Mencer.
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 556]
This is an appeal by Cecile Arufo (claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits on the basis that claimant voluntarily left her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature 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). We reverse.
Claimant was last employed as a bookkeeper/office manager by the Hand Rehabilitation Center in Philadelphia, where she had been employed for over four years. Claimant's work became suspect, and therefore an audit was conducted in June of 1976. The
[ 37 Pa. Commw. Page 557]
audit showed that nothing was wrong. In late September 1976, Dr. Hunter, the supervisor of the therapy department, implied that claimant was still responsible for $2,000 in allegedly missing funds. Claimant said the matter had been settled by the audit. Dr. Hunter responded as follows:
Well, it wasn't cleared up to my satisfaction I know how easy it is for a . . . bookkeeper to steal money, the easiest way is to hide money away so that you could just sit it out, as far as I'm concerned it has never been cleared up to my satisfaction or to Dr. Schneider's and as far as I'm concerned you are guilty until proved otherwise.
As a result of this accusation, claimant gave notice of her termination to Dr. Schneider the following day. She worked until October 29, 1976.
The issue raised on this appeal, based upon the undisputed facts above, is whether, under the circumstances, Dr. Hunter's remarks constituted a necessitous and compelling reason for claimant leaving her employment.
In Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 358-59, 378 A.2d 829, 832-33 ...