decided: June 10, 1980.
ROBERT DANDY, PETITIONER
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 Robert J. Dandy, No. B-163330.
Andrew F. Erba, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 132]
Robert Dandy (claimant) appeals here from adverse decisions of the Office of Employment Security, a referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) as to his request for unemployment benefits.
The claimant was last employed by the Diagnostic Rehabilitation Center in Philadelphia as a client-aide, his primary duty being to assist alcoholics in the rehabilitation program offered at the center. He worked daily from 11:30 P.M. until 7:30 A.M. and his workload had been increased when the staff was reduced shortly before the termination of his employment. All of the compensation authorities determined that he was ineligible for benefits because he
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 133]
had voluntarily left his work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn1 He now contends, however, that health reasons justified his leaving and, although he did not advance this justification at the referee's hearing, he asks us to remand his case to the Board for the presentation of "newly obtained evidence."
It is clear that, when the decision of the Board is against the party with the burden of proof, we are limited to a determination of whether or not 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. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Cooper, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 256, 360 A.2d 293 (1976). It is also clear that we cannot order a remand in the absence of a conclusion that the Board failed to make findings necessary to resolve the issues which were raised by the evidence and which are relevant to a decision.*fn2 See Wenrich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 186, 382 A.2d 1303 (1978). Here the referee concluded that the claimant left work because he was dissatisfied with his working conditions, and there is ample testimony in the record to support such a finding. If the claimant had health reasons to advance as to his justification for leaving his duties,
[ 52 Pa. Commw. Page 134]
he had every opportunity to produce supporting evidence at the hearing.
The order of the Board will therefore be affirmed.
And Now, this 10th day of June, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.