Opinion
Argued November 14, 1979
January 22, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Change of job assignment.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment without a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, and benefits are properly denied when the employe asserts that he was forced to resign when he was assigned duties outside his agreed job description but when substantial evidence supports a finding to the contrary. [630]
Argued November 14, 1979, before Judges BLATT, CRAIG and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2134 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Anthony J. Kadysewski, No. B-155268.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Submitted on briefs:
Terrance J. Herron, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him, Edward G. Biester, Jr., Acting Attorney General, for respondent.
Anthony J. Kadysewski (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied him benefits under Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1), for voluntarily terminating his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. He is a transportation planner/engineer, and he argues that he was forced to resign because his employer required him to perform administrative and clerical jobs which were not within his agreed-upon job description. There is substantial evidence, however, to support the finding of the Board that "the claimant's actual duties substantially conformed to those which had been agreed upon." We will therefore affirm the order of the Board. See, e.g., Shriner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 Pa. Commw. 368, 400 A.2d 934 (1979).
ORDER
AND NOW, this 22nd day of January, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.
This decision was reached prior to the expiration of the term of office of Judge DiSALLE.