decided: October 13, 1982.
RONALD E. NEIDERT, 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 Ronald E. Neidert, No. B-189141-B.
Harold Tull, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Rogers, Craig and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 345]
Affirming a referee's decision, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied claimant Ronald Neidert benefits because it found that he had terminated his employment with the Commonwealth's Department of General Services (department) voluntarily and without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn1
Most of the facts in this case are not in dispute. By letter dated June 24, 1980, the department informed the claimant that in one month his position as a day-shift custodial services manager would be eliminated. The letter also stated that the claimant could apply for a less remunerative position*fn2 on the 4:00 p.m. to
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 34612]
:00 p.m. shift. The board found that had the claimant applied for the latter position, he would have received it.*fn3 The claimant declined the offer, however, because he believed that late-shift duties would disrupt his domestic tranquility.*fn4
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 347]
The claimant asks us to decide whether the possibility of disturbance of marital harmony constitutes a necessary and compelling cause for refusing an offer of late-shift employment. Given the evidence presented and our limited scope of review in unemployment compensation cases, we find that it does not.
The general terms of the voluntary quit disqualification provisions, in Section 402(b)(1) of the Act, now govern the unemployment compensation eligibility of any applicant who terminates his employment for domestic reasons, as well as for other reasons. Snow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 396, 433 A.2d 922 (1981); see also Wallace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 342, 393 A.2d 43 (1978),*fn5 invalidating as unconstitutional the statutory provision which disqualified claimants terminating for domestic reasons.
[ 69 Pa. Commw. Page 348]
We are persuaded by the record that claimant has not demonstrated that his termination was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. In Snow, we held that a one-hundred mile relocation, which produced "heated disagreements" and a "great deal of friction" in a marriage, did not constitute a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily quitting a job to return home. 61 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 399-400, 433 A.2d at 924.
Between the facts in Snow and the facts of this case, the only difference is that, instead of relocation, this claimant offers a change in shift as the basis for his fear of potential marital discord. Yet, we have held that a change in shift does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Stalc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 131, 318 A.2d 398 (1974). Accordingly, we affirm.
Now, October 13, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-189141-B, denying benefits to Ronald E. Neidert, is hereby affirmed.