Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Lillard Shaffer, Jr., No. B-199011.
Lorraine M. Bittner, for petitioner.
Richard F. Faux, Associate Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Craig and Doyle, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 381]
This is an appeal by Lillard Shaffer, Jr. (Claimant) from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's determination that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). We affirm.
Section 402(b) provides, in pertinent part:
An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
[ 74 Pa. Commw. Page 382]
A claimant has the burden to show that a voluntary termination of employment was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Taylor v. Unemployment Page 382} Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977); Yazevac v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 90, 430 A.2d 1207 (1981). And where the party with the burden of proof does not prevail before the Board, our scope of review is limited to a determination of whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and whether they can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence. Yazevac; Ruckstuhl v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 302, 426 A.2d 719 (1981).
Claimant was employed as a truck driver with Inland Products, Inc. (Inland) and quit his job on or about May 25, 1981. Before the referee, Claimant testified that he terminated his employment because Inland required him to haul loads which exceeded the legal weight limit of the truck and which made driving with such loads unsafe. He testified that on one occasion he had been required to haul a load which, with the weight of both trailer and cab, exceeded the weight for which the truck was registered. Claimant testified further that even if the heavier loads the drivers were required to haul did not exceed the total capacity registered for the truck, they could not be distributed to meet the specific weight requirements for each axle. Inland presented testimony that the heavier loads required did not exceed legal ...