decided: January 31, 1983.
PHILIP KELLENBENZ, 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 Philip Kellenbenz, No. B-192433.
Robert J. Matthews, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 469]
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming an order of the referee and holding Philip Kellenbenz (Claimant) ineligible for benefits under the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess. P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b), because he voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of necessitous and compelling nature.
The Claimant's sole basis of appeal here is that the Board erred in determining that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of necessitous and compelling nature. We hold that the Board did not err and affirm its order.
The testimony of the Employer's*fn1 representative and the Claimant's own statement*fn2 in the summary of interview fully warrant the Board's findings that:
[ 71 Pa. Commw. Page 4702]
. The Claimant was dissatisfied with his hours of work and rate of pay.
3. The claimant gave his superior four (4) days notice of his intention to leave this employment and the possibility of obtaining other employment with another individual.
4. The claimant was not laid off by his employer and continuing work was available had the claimant desired to remain employed. (Emphasis added.)
After a careful review of the record, we are well satisfied that the Board did not capriciously disregard*fn3 any competent evidence in exercising its exclusive fact-finding role.*fn4 Neither dissatisfaction with one's wages, nor working conditions is sufficient to establish the necessary justification for terminating employment. Querry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 63 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 170, 437 A.2d 1048 (1981). The Board in the instant case also found that Claimant had a "possibility" of finding employment with someone else. However, "[t]he mere possibility of other employment is not sufficient to constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating one's employment." Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 166, 170, 325 A.2d 320, 322 (1974).
Accordingly, we enter the following order.
It is ordered that the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review numbered B-192433 and dated February 20, 1981, is hereby affirmed.