Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Geraldine Sileo, No. B-172988.
George F. Schoener, Jr., of counsel, Arnold M. Kessler Associates, for petitioner.
Steven Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 633]
Petitioner Geraldine Sileo (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her unemployment benefits. The Board affirmed the referee's determination that the Claimant had voluntarily quit her employment without "cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" and was, therefore, ineligible for benefits by force of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
Until December 8, 1978 the Claimant was employed by the Continental Bank as a loan interviewer. On
[ 53 Pa. Commw. Page 634]
that date she voluntarily terminated her employment. The circumstances of her quitting are as follows: On the morning of November 17, 1978 the Claimant did not report to work as scheduled but conveyed a message to the bank, by means of her daughter, that she had to undergo emergency dental treatment that morning and would come to work later in the day. Three times that afternoon the Claimant's supervisor tried to reach her by telephone, but without success. The Claimant never came to work that day; and according to her supervisor, she never communicated with the bank that day. November 17, 1978 was a Friday, one of the busiest days for the bank.
The following Monday, Claimant Sileo commenced a week's vacation and did not return to work until November 27th. Upon her return she was given a written disciplinary notice citing her for being absent from work without permission on the 17th and for not following the bank's rules for taking a day off. The disciplinary notice, prepared by her supervisor, advised her that further violations of those rules would result in her discharge. In addition to the disciplinary notice, the employer deducted one day's pay from her salary, reflecting the day she missed work.
The Claimant's reaction to the disciplinary notice was to submit her resignation that same day, November 27, 1978, to take effect on December 8, 1978. Whatever issue the Claimant took with the disciplinary notice, the record in this case does not reveal an effort by her to resolve it with her employer. Nor did she request a transfer to another branch of the bank, even though she had been an employee for 11 years.
In the case of a "voluntary quit", the claimant has the burden of showing that the resignation was due to a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ...