Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Francis J. Pavlis, No. B-149836.
Francis J. Pavlis, petitioner, for himself.
Michael Klein, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, DiSalle and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 188]
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) awarding benefits to Francis J. Pavlis (Claimant) for the weeks ending October 23 and October 30, 1976, and denying his claim for benefits thereafter.
Factually, it appears from the record that Claimant, a resident of Illinois, was employed as a salesman in the Chicago area by the Wamsutta Trucraft Division of M. Lowenstein and Sons (Wamsutta), a Pennsylvania Company, from 1973 until September 27, 1976, when he was discharged because he made "excessive demands" upon that employer. On October 18, 1976, Claimant filed a claim in Illinois for unemployment compensation benefits. Since the employer was located in Pennsylvania the claim was processed as an interstate claim. A written "fact-finding report," completed by an investigator in Illinois and verified by the Claimant, states that Claimant became employed by Consolidated Textile Company (Consolidated), an Illinois Company, on October 19, 1976.*fn1 Claimant quit his job with Consolidated on October 29, 1976. His reasons for doing so are in dispute.
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 189]
On October 27, 1976, the Pennsylvania State Employment Service sent an inquiry to Wamsutta requesting more information on Claimant's discharge from that employer. In addition, Wamsutta's representative was interviewed on November 15, 1976. On that same date the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) in Pennsylvania determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits with respect to his employment with Consolidated and with Wamsutta under the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) and 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §§ 802(b)(1), (e). Claimant appealed that determination.
Pennsylvania then referred the case to Illinois for a hearing which was held March 17, 1977. At that hearing the referee (in Illinois) noted that Pennsylvania was apparently considering Claimant's separation from both employers and observed that Illinois normally would consider the last place of employment (Consolidated). Nevertheless, the referee proceeded with the hearing according to the instructions from Pennsylvania. At the hearing the Claimant testified that he made no excessive demands of Wamsutta and that he quit at Consolidated because (1) the financial rewards promised by Consolidated could not, in his opinion, be fulfilled within the time frame promised by Consolidated at the time of employment (2) he was required to be away from his home for long periods of time, causing distress to his family and (3) he was "on the road" too much. Neither employer was represented at the hearing and Claimant appeared without counsel.
A transcript of the hearing, together with Claimant's exhibits, were forwarded to Pennsylvania where a referee found that Claimant voluntarily left his employment
[ 42 Pa. Commw. Page 190]
without compelling or necessitous reasons and that benefits should be denied under Section 402(b)(1). Obviously, those findings had to relate to Consolidated since there is no ...