Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RANDALL W. PEASE v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (02/06/79)

decided: February 6, 1979.

RANDALL W. PEASE, PETITIONER
v.
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 Randall W. Pease, No. B-147935.

COUNSEL

Chester B. Smith, with him Edward M. Pulaski, for petitioner.

Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 300]

Randall W. Pease (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him unemployment compensation benefits. The Board took no additional testimony but affirmed the referee's findings of fact and his conclusions that the Claimant should be denied benefits under Section 401(d) and 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. §§ 801(d) and 802(b)(1).*fn1

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 301]

Claimant argues that the Board erred when it found that Claimant voluntarily quit his employment without a necessitous and compelling reason and when it held that "quitting for personal reasons does not qualify a claimant for benefits."

In essence, Claimant contends that he was between "a rock and a hard place" when his employer called him into the office and told him he had a choice of quitting or being fired for certain alleged violations of company policy, which Claimant denies. Claimant stated that he decided to quit because he was on probation for a criminal conviction at the time of his conversation with his employer and had been told by his probation officer that if he was fired from his job he would be reincarcerated. His testimony before the referee is crucial.

QR: Well, why did you quit?

AC: Because at the time I was on probation and still am, as a matter of fact. I was on probation, and I felt I didn't have time enough to discuss this with my probation officer, and he had told me if I got fired from a job that they would immediately put me back in jail. So with me on probation I didn't know, you know, what to do so I voluntarily quit rather than getting fired. I knew voluntarily quitting, if I'd gotten fired I'd have to wait seven weeks for my check to come in after I got fired. So at the time I thought it would be easier to just voluntarily quit stating that I had smashed my

[ 40 Pa. Commw. Page 302]

    car up and couldn't get back in now to work. This is not the statement I wanted to say, but it was a good enough statement so that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.