Appeal from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of Robert F. Carroll, No. B-253535.
Richard J. Friedman, for petitioner.
Sandra L. Clouser, Assistant Counsel, with her, Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail and Barry, and Senior Judge Narick, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Barry. Judge MacPhail dissents.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 597]
Robert F. Carroll, the claimant, appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a decision of a referee denying claimant benefits because he voluntarily quit his job without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b) (Sup. 1987).
Claimant was hired by All Natural (employer) in November of 1985. At the time of his hire, he was earning $3.50 an hour. According to the claimant's testimony, he was told at the time of his hire that an automatic raise would be forthcoming after he had worked for six months. After working six months, claimant began inquiring about the promised pay increase. He was eventually told that he would be given a raise only if he would take and pass a polygraph examination. Rather than take the examination, claimant quit his job.
Claimant applied for benefits. The Office of Employment Security denied the application based on Section 402(b). The claimant then appealed and a hearing, at which the employer failed to appear, was held before a referee. After the claimant testified that he had been promised an automatic raise after working six months and had quit when he was informed that no raise would be forthcoming until he had successfully passed the polygraph examination, the referee denied benefits. Claimant appealed to the Board, which also denied benefits. The Board's denial was based on the following findings of fact:
2. The claimant had requested a raise in salary and a promotion and was advised by the employer that such would not be discussed until claimant took a polygraph test.
[ 113 Pa. Commw. Page 5983]
. The taking of the polygraph test was not made a condition of claimant's continuing employment.
4. The claimant was not advised that he would be discharged if he did not submit himself to a polygraph test.
6. On May 13, 1986, the claimant voluntarily terminated his employment because he did not want to take a polygraph test and because he was dissatisfied with his failure ...