Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Ardell MacGregor, No. B-163635-B.
Joseph L. Romano, with him Ronald I. Rosenstein, for petitioner.
Steven R. Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish.
Ardell MacGregor was denied benefits on grounds that he voluntarily terminated his employment with Kaiser Aluminum without cause of a necessitous and compelling reason. Section 402(b)(1) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of
December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1).*fn1 He appeals; we affirm.
MacGregor, a 58-year old electrician, contends that he was forced to terminate his employment due to a continuing pattern of age discrimination which deprived him of a vacation allowance and a promotion to which he was otherwise entitled. This alleged discrimination in turn caused a nervous condition which MacGregor claims, in consideration of its effect on his general health and welfare, forced him to resign.
In determining whether he had compelling or necessitous reasons for voluntarily quitting his job, we resort to hornbook law that limits our scope of review, to wit: one who asserts that his leaving employment was not voluntary termination or that termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature has the burden of proving such assertions. Since MacGregor did not prevail below, review by this Court is limited to a determination of whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Bowman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 170, 410 A.2d 422 (1980).
Employer argues that MacGregor's work performance was satisfactory and that continued work was available had he remained on the job. Employer agrees that a vacation allowance was omitted for over two years; however, the record indicates that this was
due to unfortunate circumstances beyond employer's control and does not evidence any discrimination by employer. MacGregor's charge of age discrimination, if supported by evidence in the record, would constitute a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his employment. See Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. Here, however, MacGregor did not present competent evidence tending to prove that he was forced to ...