Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Leonard E. Eddy, No. B-249586.
Kenneth A. Wise, for petitioner.
Patricia Krise Bilzi, Assistant Counsel, with her, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judge Doyle, and Senior Judge Kalish, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Doyle.
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 47]
Leonard Eddy (Claimant) petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) (voluntary quit).*fn1 We vacate and remand for a new hearing.
Claimant is a journeyman wireman and a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 306 (Union) in Akron, Ohio. Claimant obtains his employment through the Union's hiring hall. On October 17, 1985, Steen Electric, Inc. (Employer) contacted the hiring hall to obtain the services of a wireman for a week's work (forty hours) commencing October 21, 1985. The hiring hall sent Claimant to fill the position.
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 48]
On October 25, 1985, Claimant's last scheduled day, he was sounded out by Employer's foreman as to his availability for work the next week.*fn2 Later that day Claimant was given a pay check and left the job site, never to return to work for Employer.
Claimant filed an interstate application for unemployment benefits. The Office of Employment Security (OES) denied benefits on the ground that Claimant had left his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature under Section 402(b). Claimant appealed this determination, and because he was in Florida at the time of the appeal looking for work and Employer was located in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio, the referee assigned to the case scheduled a hearing by telephone. After the hearing, the referee found the determination of the OES to be correct and the Board affirmed. This appeal followed.*fn3
Claimant argues that his right to present witnesses and evidence on his behalf was effectively precluded by the referee's failure to put witnesses from the hiring hall
[ 111 Pa. Commw. Page 49]
on the telephone and make them participants to ...