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.

CLYDE A. JACK v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (09/09/82)

decided: September 9, 1982.

CLYDE A. JACK, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Clyde A. Jack, No. B-186252.

COUNSEL

Paul J. Quattrone, for petitioner.

Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.

President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr.

Author: Crumlish

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 625]

Clyde Jack appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits.*fn1 We affirm.

Jack, a furniture designer and supervisor of the employer's mill room, voluntarily quit after becoming dissatisfied with working conditions and his employer's failure to promote a new product line he had designed.

Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law*fn2 provides that a claimant will be ineligible for benefits for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of necessitous and compelling nature. . . ."

The claimant bears the burden of proving a cause of necessitous and compelling nature for his voluntary quit. Rinehart v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 15, 389 A.2d 243 (1978). Our scope of review, where the party with the burden of proof does not prevail below, is limited to determining whether the findings of fact

[ 68 Pa. Commw. Page 626]

    are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and whether they can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence. Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302, 426 A.2d 719 (1981).

At the outset, we note that mere dissatisfaction with one's working conditions is not compelling and necessitous cause to terminate one's employment. McKeown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 617, 442 A.2d 1257 (1982).

Jack contends that his quit was for a necessitous and compelling reason because the employer failed to honor an oral agreement to produce and promote a new product line he had designed.*fn3 The parties presented conflicting testimony under the agreement ...


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.