Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Douglas S. Huyck, No. B-181308.
Stephen Cohen, for petitioner.
Steven R. Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Attorney General, for respondent.
Judges Craig, MacPhail and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 401]
Clayton E. Solomon (Employer) has appealed from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which reversed a referee's decision denying benefits and concluded that Douglas S. Huyck (Claimant) had demonstrated cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating his employment.*fn1 We affirm.
The Board's findings reflect that Claimant was last employed as an automobile body mechanic with Employer at an hourly rate of $5.25. Claimant had been employed for approximately one and one-half years when he voluntarily quit on October 11, 1979. Approximately two weeks prior to that date, Employer had assigned Claimant to make specified repairs on a car which Claimant subsequently completed as instructed by his Employer. On or about October 9, 1979, the customer returned the car to have additional repairs made. Employer ordered Claimant to make the
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 402]
repairs without additional remuneration. Claimant refused and two days later voluntarily terminated his employment rather than perform the work without compensation. Since the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence they are binding on this Court. Fenk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 45 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 213, 405 A.2d 590 (1979).
On appeal, Employer contends that Claimant has not demonstrated cause of a necessitous and compelling nature*fn2 for leaving his employment because the repair work which Claimant refused to perform was a part of his original assignment and, thus, did not constitute additional work for which increased remuneration would be due.*fn3 The Board's finding that Claimant was ordered to do additional work is clearly supported by Claimant's own testimony:
Sonny had taken me around the job and showed me all the spots to be repaired about two weeks prior to this. And I repaired everything that he told me to repair. The owner of the car brought the car back two weeks later and wanted several other spots repaired. And Sonny told me that I would have to repair them with no pay.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 403]
We observe that Employer failed to appear or send a representative to the referee's hearing and the Board, therefore, did not have the benefit of Employer's testimony. Even if Employer had presented conflicting testimony, however, the conflict ...