Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MADELEINE ALLEN v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (12/10/85)

decided: December 10, 1985.

MADELEINE ALLEN, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Madeleine Allen, No. B-228068.

COUNSEL

Judith L. Jones, for petitioner.

John W. English, Jr., Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Judges Craig and Palladino, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 391]

Claimant Madeleine Allen appeals from a decision of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which, affirming the referee's decision, denied her benefits under section 402(b) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Law*fn1 concluding that she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.*fn2

When the reason for voluntarily terminating employment is health related, the claimant must offer competent testimony that adequate health reasons existed at the time of the termination to justify the termination. Additionally, the claimant must have informed the employer of the health problem and have been available for work not inimical to the claimant's health. Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982). The claimant's failure to meet any one of these conditions will bar a claim for unemployment compensation. Dornblum v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 547, 466 A.2d 747 (1983).

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 392]

The claimant worked in the bakery department of various stores of Laneco (the employer) from February 1981 to November 26, 1983. The claimant was a bakery manager when she submitted a letter of resignation on November 19, 1983, immediately after her supervisor, the store manager, had confronted her with a written corrective review. That review attributed eleven problem areas to claimant and contained a warning of suspension if she did not correct the problems. The claimant expressed in her letter of resignation*fn3 that she was too angry and upset to rebut her supervisor's allegations.

The claimant testified that she had earlier informed her previous supervisor, in May or June of

[ 93 Pa. Commw. Page 3931983]

, that she was suffering from work related anxiety and depression and that she had requested a demotion at that time. The claimant further testified that her supervisor denied her request for a demotion and informed her that her only choice was to continue as a bakery manager or terminate her employment. The claimant's personnel file did not contain any record of her request for a demotion or management's subsequent refusal.

The claimant's supervisor at the time of termination testified that he was unaware of the claimant's health problem and did not become aware of it until the claimant's doctor sent a letter verifying her ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.