Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Connie Perrelli, No. B-183087.
Michelle Terry, with her Mark A. Kaufman, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Blatt and Williams, Jr., sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr.
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 606]
Claimant appeals to this Court to vacate an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which upheld a referee's determination that claimant is ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), for voluntarily terminating her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant Perrelli had worked for approximately four months as a management trainee for Dial Finance
[ 57 Pa. Commw. Page 607]
Company (employer), when she voluntarily terminated her employment on December 14, 1979. Her terse letter of resignation to the employer stated that she was leaving because of her "dislike in handling collection accounts." In the Summary of Interview from her local unemployment office, which she signed, she listed innumerable job pressures*fn1 which precipitated her resignation.
At the hearing before the referee, the employer was represented by the manager of the branch for which claimant had worked; claimant offered only her own testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing a representative for the local office testified that claimant had made reference to sexual harassment as one reason for leaving the job. Under prodding from the referee, claimant testified that there was "some sexual harassment on the job but, you know, I feel as though the collections were the main thing that caused me my headaches and stiff neck and constant state of depression." When asked point blank whether the reason for her termination was the collections or the sexual harassment, claimant said, "it was the collections."
When the referee denied benefits, claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the decision of the referee. Upon appeal to this Court, claimant assigns as error the failure of the Board to consider claimant's allegations of sexual harassment cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for her resignation.
Absent fraud or its equivalent, our scope of review is delimited by resolutions of
[Q]uestions of law and a determination of whether the findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are supported by the evidence, leaving to the Board questions ...