Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Warren McDermott, No. B-176970.
Kenneth S. Siegel, Malis, Tolson & Malis, for petitioner.
John Kupchinsky, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
Mabel Ditter Sellers, with her, Francis J. Tarquini, Jenkins, Tarquini & Jenkins, for intervenor.
Judges Mencer, Craig and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Judge Wilkinson, Jr. did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 395]
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied unemployment compensation benefits to Warren McDermott (Claimant) pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)*fn1 which provides in pertinent part that "[a]n employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week . . . [i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature . . . ." We affirm.
Claimant was last employed as the chief executive officer of the Daily Corporation (Daily). On March 21, 1979, following a private meeting with James Russell, the president and majority shareholder of Daily, Claimant emptied his desk, left the premises, and never reported back to work. Thereafter, the Bureau, now Office, of Employment Security determined that Claimant had voluntarily left his job without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and denied benefits. Claimant appealed this determination, and a referee's hearing was conducted on August 10, 1979. Following this hearing, the referee made the following pertinent findings of fact:
2. Claimant was having a continuing dispute with his employer concerning corporate matters and was unhappy with both the owner of the corporation and the controller.
3. Claimant indicated to his last employer that he could not work with the controller of the corporation and would not continue to do so or work for the corporation unless the controller was dismissed.
4. After being informed that the controller would not be dismissed, the claimant never thereafter returned to work.
[ 60 Pa. Commw. Page 396]
The referee concluded from these findings that (1) Claimant's failure to return to work constituted a voluntary termination, (2) that Claimant's dispute with the corporation was not a necessitous or compelling reason for terminating employment, and (3) that Claimant was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits by Section ...