Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Vennie Willis, No. B-229690.
Richard E. Gordon, of counsel: June F. Swanson, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, with him, James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Doyle, and Senior Judge Barbieri, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 309]
Vennie Willis (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 310]
(Board) which affirmed the referee's denial of benefits to Claimant pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).*fn1 We affirm.
In affirming, the Board adopted the following facts found by the referee. Claimant was employed as a licensed practical nurse by Forbes Health System (Employer). On April 12, 1983, Employer terminated Claimant's services because of medication errors. Claimant, thereupon, filed discrimination charges with the Human Relations Commission (Commission). On May 10, 1983, Claimant and Employer signed an agreement by which Claimant would return to work as a nurse's aide,*fn2 at the same pay rate as a licensed practical nurse, and with back pay. As a condition precedent to this settlement, it was orally agreed that Claimant would retire from her position on September 30, 1983, which was the earliest date the Claimant could receive her pension. Claimant returned to work and, subsequently, withdrew her complaint against Employer which she had filed with the Commission. Claimant remained employed as a nurse's aide until September 30, 1983. The Board concluded that Claimant voluntarily retired as of that date.
Claimant contends in this appeal that she was discharged and did not voluntarily terminate her employment, or, in the alternative, if she did voluntarily
[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 311]
quit, that there were compelling and necessitous reasons to justify termination.*fn3
Whether Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment or was discharged is a question of law subject to our review. Kligge v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 89 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 30, 491 A.2d 325 (1985). The burden of proving ...