Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Walter Potente, Nos. B-213274 and B-213275.
Joseph U. Esper, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry. Judge MacPhail dissents. This decision was reached prior to the resignation of Judge Williams, Jr.
This appeal results from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying benefits to claimant Walter F. Potente.
Claimant filed an application for benefits in August of 1981, following an indefinite layoff from Mesta Machine, where he had been employed as a bridge crane operator. In February of 1982, claimant took a job with McDevitt & Street Co. in Atlanta, Georgia; he was to work as a tower crane operator for $10.00/hour. After working for three and one half days in the tower crane, claimant realized he was not competent to operate that type of crane*fn1 and he asked his employer to be assigned to a different job. Claimant was given a job as a laborer for $6.00/hour. After working as a laborer for a little less than a month, he quit his
job and returned to the Pittsburgh area, believing it would be economically unfeasible to relocate his family in Atlanta on a wage of $6.00/hour.
Claimant applied for benefits upon his return to Pennsylvania. Despite the fact that records from McDevitt & Street Co. were slow in reaching the local authorities, claimant began collecting weekly benefits. When the records arrived, the Office of Employment Security determined that claimant had not been entitled to benefits and further issued a fault overpayment assessment.
On appeal a referee decided that claimant was not entitled to benefits, but held that the overpayment was of the non-fault variety. The Board affirmed the referee.
Claimant raises but one issue in this appeal; he claims that the Board erred in failing to conclude he had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature justifying his voluntary quit and rendering him eligible for benefits 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) (Supp. 1965-83). The burden of proof in a voluntary quit case is on the claimant to establish his entitlement to benefits. Steffy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 367, 453 A.2d 591 (1982). Where, as here, the party with the burden of proof has not prevailed below, our review is limited to determining whether the factual findings are consistent, whether those findings can be sustained without capricious disregard of competent evidence and whether any errors of law were committed. Bruder v. Unemployment Compensation ...