Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Donald Fernandes, No. B-169093.
Donald Fernandes, petitioner, for himself.
Elsa D. Newman-Silverstine, with her Gary Marini, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers, and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
Claimant Donald Fernandes appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which held that claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1), 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 because he voluntarily terminated his employment with the Philadelphia Rivet Company (employer) without necessitous and compelling cause.
On September 29, 1978, after observing the claimant engaging in horseplay during working hours, the claimant's supervisor sent the claimant home early. The supervisor accompanied his disciplinary action with a warning to claimant that if he persisted in such
conduct he could look for another job. Claimant did not report to work after September 29, but he came to pick up his pay check on October 4, 1978 and at that time was informed that he could still return to his job. However, the claimant never returned to work.
The claimant has the burden of proving that he terminated his employment due to necessitous and compelling cause. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976).
To meet his burden, claimant timely requested in writing the issuance of subpoenas to produce documents and witnesses at the referee's hearing. Section 506 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 826, provides:
The department and the board shall have power to issue summons or subpoenas to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of . . . papers . . . and other records deemed necessary as evidence in connection with a disputed claim. . . .
Because the Office of Employment Security failed to provide claimant's request to the referee before the hearing, the referee considered the request in the course of the ...