Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of George Yazevac, No. B-178692.
Louis M. Ligouri, for petitioner.
Stephen B. Lipson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Mencer, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
George Yazevac (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's decision to deny Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. The denial was on the ground that Claimant had voluntarily quit his employment without cause of a "necessitous and compelling nature" and was thus ineligible for benefits
by force of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1). We affirm.
On August 3, 1979, Claimant, prior to leaving for a two-week vacation, informed his supervisor at the All American Company (Employer) that he was quitting his job. He gave no reason for his decision and on August 24, 1979, he reaffirmed that he would not be returning to his job. Claimant then filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits, which eventually resulted in a hearing before a referee from the Board.
At the hearing, Claimant contended that he had terminated his employment with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature because of allegedly hazardous working conditions that made continuing employment unsafe and which, he felt, were not going to be remedied despite his complaints to Employer. Employer countered with testimony to the effect that, while some of Claimant's allegations were true, conditions on the whole were not unsafe. Evidence was also adduced of an apparent conflict of personalities and attitudes between Claimant and younger employees.
Following the hearing, the referee concluded that Claimant had quit because he was dissatisfied with working conditions and that these conditions "did not render his employment unsafe or onerous." Benefits were denied accordingly. Claimant appealed this determination to the Board, which affirmed the referee's decision.
Claimant, on appeal to this Court, contends that the findings of fact below are not supported by competent, substantial evidence and that the Board's ...