Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Glenn J. Romao, No. B-190109.
Allen H. Smith, for petitioner.
Richard Lengler, Law Student Intern, with him Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Craig, MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail. This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge Mencer.
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 213]
Glenn J. Romao (Claimant) has appealed to this Court from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming a referee's denial of benefits on the basis of Claimant's voluntary termination of employment "without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature."*fn1
Claimant was last employed by Jimmy Wilson, Jr. (Employer) as an estimator of moving costs for customers. Until two months prior to his termination, Claimant was paid $200 per week salary plus a 2% commission on business up to $100,000, and a 4% commission over that amount. This commission was based on the complete cost (packing and transportation) of all sales that he worked on. At that time, Employer changed Claimant's method of remuneration to a draw of $200 weekly against commissions. The commission rate was changed to 5% for all business which came to him through the office and 7% on all business brought in by Claimant. The commission was to be based on only the transportation portion of each sale. During the first month under this arrangement, Claimant earned $530, or $270 under his $800 draw for the
[ 66 Pa. Commw. Page 214]
month. During the second month, Claimant earned $1549, from which Employer recovered the prior month's shortfall. Claimant terminated his employment on July 3, 1980.
Claimant has argued to the Board and this Court that the change in remuneration would have resulted in a material change in income from $21,000 the prior year to $10,000 under the new pay method.*fn2 This, Claimant argues, was cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for quitting, thus justifying his termination.
However, change in remuneration cannot be asserted as a valid cause for quitting in this case so long as finding of fact number four -- "Claimant agreed to the new commission arrangement as the new terms of his employment" -- is supported by substantial evidence. For we believe that once an employee has accepted new employment terms, he has admitted to their suitability, see Ennis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 50 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 10, 411 A.2d 1291 (1980), and therefore any later dissatisfaction with those terms, under well settled law, would not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. See Happe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 486, 395 A.2d 701 (1979).
We have examined the testimony presented in this case and we believe that the Board could reasonably have concluded that Claimant did accept these new terms. Claimant did not testify to any agreed upon trial period for this new remuneration ...