Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Kathleen St. John, No. B-234242.
Edward Van Stevenson, Jr., Neighborhood Legal Services Association, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Assistant Counsel, with him, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Barry, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry.
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 561]
Kathleen St. John, claimant, appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her claim for benefits.
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 562]
Claimant was employed by Shoe Corporation of America (SCOA). Her place of employment was the Budget Shoe Department of Joseph Horne Company as a sales clerk and her responsibilities included attending to patrons, packing and unpacking boxes and cartons, filling store displays, checking out customers who were purchasing shoes and cleaning and shelving the employment area. She was hospitalized on March 20, 1984, underwent surgery and was unable to return to work for six weeks. Her last day at work before surgery was March 18, 1984. Upon her release from the hospital, claimant was informed by her doctor that she could return to work if she performed only light duties. He restricted her to desk work. Employer notified her that no jobs of those types were available. On March 30, 1984 claimant reported to the Unemployment Office to file for unemployment compensation benefits. On May 6, 1984 claimant was given a full release by her doctor to return to work. She did so immediately. She was denied benefits for the period from March 18 to May 6 by the OES and the referee under Section 401(d)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1). The Board affirmed. On appeal to this court claimant argues that the referee erred when he gauged claimant's availability under Section 401(d)(1) in the context of the market for desk jobs within Shoe America Company rather than the general employment market -- which is the required measuring standard under 401(d)(1). In essence, claimant argues that employer failed to prove claimant's limitations on her availability effectively removed her from the job market. Finding of fact No. 5, she contends, even if supported by the record, clearly indicates that the referee committed an error of law by improperly narrowing the effect of Section 401(d)(1).
[ 108 Pa. Commw. Page 563]
Section 402(b) of the Act, 43 P.S. § 802(b) (Supp. 1986), provides that:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week --
(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, irrespective of whether or not such work is in 'employment' as defined in this act: Provided, That a voluntary leaving work because of a disability if the employer is able to provide other suitable work, shall be deemed not a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature: . . . .
In unemployment cases, the burden is on the employee to show that he had a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his employment. Pennsylvania Electric v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 69 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 214, 450 A.2d 779 (1982). Claimant, in order to meet her burden of proof must prove that, at the time she left her employment, 1) adequate health reasons existed to justify her absence, 2) she informed the employer of her health problems and, 3) she specifically requested the employer to transfer her to a more suitable position. Deiss v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 Pa. 547, 381 A.2d 132 (1977).*fn1 The record reveals that claimant has met these requirements. However, once claimant had established that she had a ...