Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of Ada M. Kadlecik, No. B-173560-B.
Samuel J. Pasquarelli, Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, P.C., for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges Blatt, Williams, Jr. and Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barbieri.
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 412]
The claimant, Ada M. Kadlecik, appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her unemployment benefits for voluntarily leaving her employment without cause of a compelling
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 413]
and necessitous nature, as required under 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) (Law).
Claimant, a native of Kentucky, working in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania with her husband, who was a native of McKees Rocks, prevailed upon her husband to obtain employment in Kentucky in the hope that this would alleviate marital problems arising out of his extramarital activities in McKees Rocks. She left with him, voluntarily terminating her employment in McKees Rocks, Pennsylvania, on February 14, 1979. For this unemployment she is pursuing a claim for benefits which is the subject of these proceedings. Because of circumstances of employment, claimant and her husband returned to McKees Rocks where they continued to own their home, which they rented while in Kentucky. Claimant and her husband are reemployed, claimant having returned to work for the employer she left in 1979.
Unemployment benefits were denied by a referee and by the Board, ineligibility based upon Section 402(b)(1) of the Law.*fn1 Claimant's contention here is that the Board erred in denying benefits (1) by concluding
[ 75 Pa. Commw. Page 414]
that she did not have compelling and necessitous reasons for leaving her employment and (2) Section 402(b)(2)(I), 43 P.S. 802(b)(2)(I), is unconstitutional. The latter issue was admittedly not addressed by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.*fn2
Before addressing the issue as to whether or not the claimant is entitled to benefits, we must first note that causes related to marital, filial, and domestic obligations have received vacillating attention from our Legislature. From the conception of the Unemployment Compensation Law in 1937, Section 402(b) has been changed and amended numerous times, with each change reflecting a change in the view of the Legislature as to how family obligations should be treated in relation to a person's right to unemployment benefits. See Savage Unemployment Compensation Case, 401 Pa. ...