decided: June 7, 1982.
CENTERVILLE CLINICS, INC., PETITIONER
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 Marlene Dranzo, No. B-178677.
J. Scott Leckie, Yablonski, King, Costello & Leckie, for petitioner.
Mark F. Geary, for respondent, Marlene Dranzo.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 92]
Centerville Clinics, Inc., as employer, questions an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which awarded benefits to claimant Marlene Dranzo, reversing a referee's decision that the claimant was ineligible under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law,*fn1 the voluntary quit disqualification.
Explaining that her immediate resignation on March 30, 1979, was the result of an "emotional outburst" caused by the employer's act of promoting another employee over her to the position of department head, the claimant admitted leaving work two hours early following a confrontation with her supervisors, but she argues that her attempt later to rescind
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 93]
the resignation*fn2 rendered her eligible for benefits. After determining that the employer had not taken any steps to replace the claimant before receiving her revocation of the resignation,*fn3 the board, citing Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976), sustained the claimant's contention.
However, our later decision in Funkhouser v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 33, 416 A.2d 646 (1980), is controlling where, as here, the effective date of the claimant's resignation preceded her attempt to return to work. The testimony clearly indicates that on March 30 the claimant repeatedly assured her supervisors of her intention to resign immediately without notice. As we held in Funkhouser, Walker and the cases which followed it*fn4 are therefore inapplicable because they all involved examination of an employer's action to replace an employee who revoked a future-dated resignation before it took effect.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 94]
Concluding, as a matter of law, that the claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, we reverse.*fn5
Now, June 7, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-178677, dated December 13, 1979, is reversed.