Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of Kathryn K. Tremblay, No. 183282-B.
David W. Starfield, Starfield & Payne, for petitioner.
James Norris, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Williams, Jr. Concurring Opinion by Judge Blatt.
Livezey Graphics (employer) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which granted benefits to the claimant, determining that she had necessitous and compelling reasons for terminating her employment. Section 402(b)(1) of the unemployment Compensation Law.*fn1
The claimant's voluntary quit was precipitated by a letter from her employer, dated June 8, 1979, which advised her of changes in office procedures. Among other modifications to her employment situation, the claimant was now obligated to work every Monday through Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. On June 11, the claimant approached the employer to discuss the finality of the terms contained in the letter. After an exchange during which the employer reiterated his unilateral determination that she would have to work
the stated hours, claimant tendered him a letter of resignation. The claimant alleges, and the Board found, that she and the employer had agreed at the time of hire that she would have Thursday afternoons and every other Monday off.*fn2
Claimant's application for benefits was rejected by the Bureau of Employment Security, and subsequently by the referee and the Board. Upon reconsideration requested by claimant's counsel, the Board vacated its earlier decision and granted benefits. The Board concluded that the material change in working hours and the negative attitude of the employer*fn3 constituted necessitous and compelling reasons for claimant to terminate the employment relationship.
The employer contends before this Court that the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence, that the Board's above-stated conclusion constituted an error of law, and that the Board's reversal of its own determination was error, in that it did not acquire new evidence at oral argument which would support such a reversal. We shall address these issues seriatim.
Turning first to the substantial evidence issue, we perceive that the record contains the following pertinent findings of fact:
3. At the time of hire the claimant was hired on a part-time basis and it was agreed by the claimant and ...