Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: George P. Keast, No. B-230714.
Norma Chase, for petitioner.
Samuel H. Lewis, Associate Counsel, with him, Charles G. Hasson, Acting Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Rogers, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Rogers.
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 347]
The claimant in this unemployment compensation case has appealed from the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review upholding a referee's decision that he, the claimant, was not eligible for compensation because he had voluntarily left his work.
There is nothing in this record which suggests that the claimant had committed an act or acts of willful misconduct or that, if he had voluntarily left his work, he had legal cause to do so; the issue is solely that of whether the claimant was discharged from his work, as he says, or whether he voluntarily left, as the referee and the board concluded.
The findings of the board as to the facts, if supported by the record, are conclusive and we must study the record in the light most favorable to the winning party and give that party the benefit of every inference which can be logically and reasonably drawn from
[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 348]
it. Shira v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 10 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 457, 310 A.2d 708 (1973).
The claimant testified that he had been employed by Yellow Cab Company of Pittsburgh for twenty-eight years; that his last position with the employer was as data processing manager and assistant controller; that one of his duties was that of getting bills out to customers on the company's computer; that the work was done by assistants who operated the three terminals at the workplace; that in October, 1983 the president of the company laid off one of the claimant's assistants with the result that by late December 1983 his billing work which, theretofore had always been current, had fallen a month in arrears; and that his services came to an end on December 27, 1983, in the fashion described in his testimony, following:
Q. . . . did you quit this job or were you dismissed?
A. . . . I was led to the understanding that it was a mutual agreement. I was asked [by the company president] if I ...