Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of John Matty, No. 193935.
George R. Price, Jr., for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges MacPhail and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 311]
John Matty (Claimant) has filed this Petition for Review from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 312]
Board of Review (Board) finding Claimant ineligible for benefits in view of its determination that his unemployment was due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. 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). We affirm.
Claimant worked as a laborer for George Logue, Inc. (Employer). On July 21, 1980, Claimant notified Employer that he was retiring "on Social Security"*fn1 and was willing to work part-time occasionally when needed to help out Employer. The Board found, based on substantial evidence, that Claimant had been offered continuing full-time work by Employer after July 21, but that Claimant had refused such offers.*fn2 Claimant did work for Employer on an irregular basis until September 20, 1980. Employer's personnel director testified that he considered Claimant to be "an on call temporary part-time employee."
The fundamental purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Law is to compensate individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Barillaro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 325, 387 A.2d 1324 (1978). In this case, Claimant could have continued in full-time employment, but it was his voluntary action in retiring and requesting only occasional work that caused his unemployment. Since voluntary retirement is not cause of a necessitous and compelling nature justifying Claimant's reduction of his availability for employment, Adamski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 441 A.2d 502
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 313]
(1982), we must agree with the Board that Claimant's actions were disqualifying conduct. See Fenk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 213, 405 A.2d 590 (1979); Spong v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ...