Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Denise M. Tuono, No. B-173647.
Bruce P. Friedman, with him Clifford B. Cohn, for petitioner.
Elsa Newman-Silverstine, Assistant Attorney General, with her James K. Bradley, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 584]
In April 1979 Denise Tuono resigned her job as an administrative secretary with Hawthorne Advertising Company. Her application for unemployment compensation benefits was denied by the Office of Employment Security, a referee, and the Board of Review on the ground that her reasons for resigning were not "of a necessitous and compelling nature" as required by the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1 The sole issue for our review is the correctness of this determination.*fn2
At the hearing before the referee Ms. Tuono testified that she resigned: because her employer was moving part of its operations to the suburbs and she was uncertain how this move would affect her; because she believed that a superior with whom she had words continued to bear sentiments of ill will toward her despite an apparent reconciliation; because a recent promotion and transfer had not yielded the benefits she anticipated; because there was, according to her testimony, a five day delay in procuring meaningful job assignments and necessary office accoutrements; and because there were a series of cancelled or rescheduled
[ 54 Pa. Commw. Page 585]
interviews, phone calls that went unanswered, a training program that did not materialize as hoped, and intercompany paperwork which was neglected or delayed by others.
The referee and the Board of Review properly concluded that Ms. Tuono's resignation was caused by "personal dissatisfaction with her work conditions"; a reason we have repeatedly held not to be compelling. See Johnson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 376, 409 A.2d 961 (1980); McGuire v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 25 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 588, 360 A.2d 315 (1976).
Her counsel suggests that Ms. Tuono's testimony should have lead the compensation authorities to infer that she was the victim of invidious mistreatment by her superiors. However, the drawing of inferences is for the compensation authorities and they here plainly believed only that Ms. Tuono was unhappy with her job. See Wardlow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 477, 387 A.2d 1356 (1978).