Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ALBERT A. LAUFFER v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/04/81)

decided: September 4, 1981.

ALBERT A. LAUFFER, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Albert A. Lauffer, No. B-180018.

COUNSEL

Dennis J. Gounley, for petitioner.

Francine Ostrovsky, Assistant Attorney General, with her James Bradley, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

Judges Mencer, Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.

Author: Blatt

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 520]

The petitioner, Albert A. Lauffer, seeks review of a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 521]

    of Review (Board) which determined that conflicts which occurred between the petitioner and his supervisor did not rise to the level of necessitous and compelling cause for terminating his employment.*fn1 We affirm.

The petitioner contends that the referee capriciously disregarded uncontroverted testimony that the petitioner's supervisor unjustifiably accused him of being a liar, that he was blamed by that supervisor for allowing his men to drink on the job, again without cause, and that the supervisor demanded too much night work from him. He maintains that such actions produced pressures which were real and substantial and would compel a reasonable person to resign from his employment.

The petitioner has the burden of showing that he had good cause for quitting, and a mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or resentment of a superior's criticism without a demonstration of unjust accusations, abusive conduct or profane language is insufficient to meet that burden. Krieger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 103, 415 A.2d 160 (1980).

The Board found that the supervisor's comments were not delivered in an offensive or profane manner and our review of the record discloses that the petitioner's own testimony established that, although profanity may have been used on one occasion, such language was considered to be acceptable in the workplace and the petitioner did not find it to be objectionable. Furthermore, even if we were to accept the petitioner's assertion that the supervisor's accusations were untrue, we must agree with the Board that

[ 61 Pa. Commw. Page 522]

    he did not establish that the reprimands he received were so uncalled for as to leave him no alternative but to resign his employment. The record shows that the comments to which he objects were directly related to employee relations and work performance which are legitimate concerns of the petitioner's superior and that a personality conflict existed between the two individuals. Such a conflict, however, does not amount to good cause for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.