Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Robert E. Whisner, No. B-191724.
Gregory J. Karlick, with him Donald M. Graffius, for petitioner.
Steven J. Neary, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish and Judges Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Judge Mencer did not participate in the decision in this case.
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 139]
Robert E. Whisner (employee) appeals from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denial of benefits. We remand for further fact findings.
On August 12, 1980, the day following his absence from work due to illness, Whisner's attendance record*fn1 as a Penn Pocahontas Coal Company employee became the subject of a verbal dispute with his supervisor, after which the employee voluntarily quit and left the employer's property. When subsequent contacts with his supervisor failed to resolve their mutual difficulties, Whisner filed for unemployment benefits.
Section 402(b) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law*fn2 provides in part that:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . . (Emphasis added.)
Whisner, having effected voluntarily his unemployed status, must demonstrate, as a prerequisite for benefits eligibility, a necessitous and compelling cause for the termination. Goughnour v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 83, 86, 420 A.2d 30, 32 (1980). Since the employee failed to meet his burden, our review is limited to determining whether or not the Board's fact findings
[ 67 Pa. Commw. Page 140]
are consistent with each other and with the legal conclusions, and whether or not the findings can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence.*fn3 Fanelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ...