Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: William C. Taylor, No. B-163511.
Kenneth B. Burkley, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., DiSalle and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge DiSalle did not participate in the decision in this case.
William C. Taylor was last employed as a radial saw and press operator by National Aluminum Extrusion Division in Murrysville on December 29, 1977, when he was laid off for lack of work. The layoff was advertised on employer's bulletin board as a "one day layoff" for a January 3, 1978 inventory, following the New Year's holiday. Taylor filed an application for benefits on January 3rd with an effective date of January 1, 1978. When the work force was recalled
on January 4th, and telephone communication was not readily available, employer attempted to recall petitioner by certified mail on January 13th and again on January 18th of 1978, but both were returned undelivered. On January 18, 1978, Taylor made a trip to Oklahoma for the purpose of seeking employment, but failed to check with or notify his employer. Returning home on February 8, 1978, Taylor received an employment termination letter dated January 25, 1978. The referee affirmed the Office of Employment Security's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 However, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's decision with a modification predicated upon Section 402(b)(1) of the Law.*fn2 In response to Taylor's appeal, we must remand.
Our scope of review in these unemployment cases is clearly limited to questions of law and whether the Board's findings of fact are supported by the evidence. Donahue v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 139, 141, 400 A.2d 251, 252 (1979). The question of whether
Taylor voluntarily quit his job is one of law to be determined upon the facts found by the compensation authorities. Simpson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 246, 248, 395 A.2d 309, 310 (1978). "We have repeatedly said that the Board must resolve all issues crucial to the decision, including justification advanced by a claimant for his conduct." Vandermark v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302, 304, 402 A.2d 309, 310 (1979). Careful review reveals no direct findings of fact to support the Board's Section 402(b)(1) conclusion that Taylor voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Without such findings, we are unable to determine whether Taylor was justified in relying upon the prior employment history of expecting a lengthy layoff. Thus, we will remand the case to the Board for additional and more specific findings as delineated herein.*fn3 See Vandermark v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra.