Opinion
No. 282 C.D. 2013
11-13-2013
Cynthia Degenhardt, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
Cynthia Degenhardt petitions pro se for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying her benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), 43 P.S. § 802(b), for voluntarily quitting her job without sufficient cause. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). Under Section 402(b) of the Law, an employee is ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature ...."
Degenhardt was employed as a housekeeper at a Holiday Inn until August 14, 2012, when according to the findings of the referee, as adopted in full by the Board, she quit her job without necessitous and compelling cause. Degenhardt maintains that she was discharged without having engaged in any willful misconduct. The referee received conflicting testimony on this point and both the referee and Board assigned greater weight and credibility to the testimony offered by employer. Craighead-Jenkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 796 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (The Board is the ultimate fact-finder and if findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive on appeal).
The General Manager of the hotel, Daniel Johnson, testified that Degenhardt left her job suddenly on Sunday, August 12 about two and one-half hours before her shift ended. On that day, the hotel had been especially busy with many unsupervised children using the public areas creating extra pressure on the short-staffed housekeeping personnel. During her shift, Degenhardt's supervisor questioned her about falling behind in her work. Degenhardt and the supervisor apparently had some disagreement and Degenhardt delivered her keys to the front desk and walked out. Subsequently, after Degenhardt called Johnson, he agreed to meet with her on Tuesday, August 14. At the meeting attended by Degenhardt, Johnson, a representative from Human Resources and the housekeeping supervisor, Degenhardt explained that she left the job after her supervisor belittled and berated her for falling behind in her work. According to Johnson, Degenhardt requested assignment to a different shift so as to avoid interaction with the supervisor. After Johnson stated that he could not change her shift and she needed to work cooperatively with her supervisor, Degenhardt left the meeting before it concluded. She did not return to work as scheduled despite Johnson's statements that he thought she was a good worker, he was short on housekeepers and did not consider her employment terminated. Johnson's testimony provided substantial evidentiary support for the conclusion that Degenhardt quit her job.
Even if Degenhardt's version of events had been accepted by the Board, her testimony did not establish that she was terminated. Degenhardt maintains that on Sunday, August 12, her supervisor indicated that she should go home and someone else would finish her work. Degenhardt summarized the reason she left by stating: "I left the meeting because of the way I was being - they were being very detrimental and very, you know, mean and, you know, said this is not going to work. You guys will not resolve this. I was going to. Apparently she wasn't." Hearing October 19, 2012, Notes of Testimony at 12. While the specific words "fired" or "discharged" do not have to be used in order for an employee to be discharged, only words possessing the immediacy and finality of a firing may be interpreted as a discharge. Torsky v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 474 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). We have held that phrases such as, "[i]f this is what you want, then go," and "[y]ou can leave now," do not meet the requirement of immediacy and finality because the employee has the option to stay or leave. See, e.g., Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 431 A.2d 1138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981); Yasgur v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 328 A.2d 908 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). Degenhardt's testimony establishes that she left her job early on Sunday because she was frustrated by her supervisor's criticisms and walked out of a meeting on Tuesday when faced with the necessity of working cooperatively with a manager she found difficult. --------
Degenhardt's testimony provides no support for findings that would establish necessitous and compelling cause to quit. At most, she describes a conflict with her supervisor on an especially busy day when work completion became delayed, and subsequent frustration at the General Manager's inability to alter the work schedule so that Degenhardt could avoid further interaction with the supervisor. Degenhardt's description of the conflict demonstrates resentments, conflicts and frustrations that do not justify quitting the job. In general, normal workplace strains and pressures do not constitute adequate cause to quit. See generally Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Resentment following a reprimand, absent unjust accusations, and personality conflicts, absent an intolerable working atmosphere, do not present necessitous and compelling causes to quit a job. Id. See also Gioia v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 661 A.2d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that Degenhardt quit work and Degenhardt's testimony, even if it had been persuasive and credible, failed to establish cause to quit. Accordingly, the denial of benefits is affirmed.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of November 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge