Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Bernard G. Johnson, No. B-178720-B.
Richard A. Katz, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 304]
Claimant Bernard Johnson appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's order which denied the claimant benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The claimant, formerly a window washer, applied for a job with the Wellsville Group Home, a residential facility for adjudicated juveniles. The Home hired the claimant as a house parent, a role for which
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 305]
the claimant had no formal training. After working for two days, the claimant voluntarily quit. The board found that the claimant quit because he was dissatisfied with his work schedule and "because he feared for his safety at work."
By accepting a job, an employee admits that the work is suitable. To prove that an accepted job actually was, or became, so unsuitable that he had a compelling cause for quitting, a claimant must first overcome the presumption of suitability by showing that the unsuitable conditions were the result of employment factors which changed after acceptance or that he was deceived as to, or was reasonably unaware of, the unsuitable conditions when he accepted the employment. Jones v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 35 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 293, 385 A.2d 639 (1978).
The board found that the employer had explained to the claimant the duties he would have and that, at the time of hiring, the employer also had informed the claimant that the facility was understaffed and that the residents had been in other juvenile institutions.
The board found that, before he was hired, the claimant visited the facility and observed "an act of violence involving two of the residents." However, in its brief, the board candidly admits that the claimant did not make that visit to the facility until after he had accepted employment.
The board concluded that it could not hold that the conditions and duties of the claimant's employment constituted a necessitous and compelling cause which could, under the law, justify quitting because the claimant was informed of employment conditions when he was hired. However, we must conclude ...