Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Ronald E. Bartholomew, No. B-156309.
Peter B. Macky, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Rogers and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson, Jr.
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 257]
Petitioner (claimant) was employed as a commissioned salesman by an insulation company for a period of six weeks, with the understanding that the claimant would provide the transportation needed to carry out his duties. Having no automobile, claimant used his daughter's until he was required to return it to
[ 46 Pa. Commw. Page 258]
her, rendering him subsequently unable to perform his duties. Public transportation was not feasible due to the nature of the work, and the claimant did not have the financial resources to purchase an automobile of his own.
Upon his application for benefits, the Bureau of Employment Security (Bureau) found the claimant ineligible under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1) which provides:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
Claimant appealed to the Referee, who affirmed the Bureau's decision. An appeal was taken to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), who, after remanding the record for additional testimony, made six findings of fact and denied benefits. We affirm.
The Board's findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive and binding on this Court. Hartley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 371, 397 A.2d 477 (1979). We find ample support for the Board's findings ...