Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Duane K. Ritter, No. B-196871.
Joseph R. DeCristopher, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr. and Judges Williams, Jr. and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by President Judge Crumlish, Jr. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 585]
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed a referee who denied benefits to Duane K. Ritter (Ritter). We affirm.
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 586]
Ritter embarked, with his fifteen-year old son, on a trip to Texas to find what he called a "good job." After one week's work as a gas pumper,*fn1 he quit and returned to Pennsylvania. He was dissatisfied with the pay and living conditions.*fn2
The Board concluded that Ritter had "voluntarily quit" and was not entitled to benefits under Section 402(b).*fn3 Ritter contends that he had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for his quit. The claimant bears the burden to prove such an assertion. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977). Ritter not having prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to determining whether there was a capricious disregard of competent evidence or an error of law in the holding. Michelcavage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 424, 431 A.2d 1153 (1981). We find no capricious disregard of competent evidence, and the Board's legal conclusion is consistent with this Court's previous holdings that discontentment with wages, hours and working conditions is not an adequate cause for terminating one's employment so as to justify an award of unemployment compensation
[ 73 Pa. Commw. Page 587]
benefits. See, e.g., Martelli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 435 A.2d 303 (1981).