From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maltese Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 6, 1959
152 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)

Summary

In Mahtese v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 190 Pa. Super. 123, 152 A.2d 773 (1959), an employee who quit due to emotional and physical stress without first discussing it with her supervisor or filing a grievance was found to have failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives.

Summary of this case from Grier v. Employment Security

Opinion

June 9, 1959.

July 6, 1959.

Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Failure to take reasonable steps to maintain employment relationship — Unemployment Compensation Law.

It is incumbent upon an employe who finds it necessary to leave work to take reasonable steps to maintain the employment relationship; failing to do so, he is deemed to have voluntarily left his employment without a necessitous reason within the meaning of § 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.

Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 209, Oct. T., 1959, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-50227, in re claim of Carolyn M. Maltese. Decision affirmed.

James McGirr Kelly, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for appellee.


Argued June 9, 1959.


This is an unemployment compensation case in which the claimant was denied benefits under the provision that, "his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature . . ." Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802(b). The Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee and the Board of Review, all, so decided.

The board found that the claimant, Carolyn M. Maltese, was last employed as a file clerk by the Curtis Publishing Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; that her last day of work was April 12, 1957; that she left work without requesting a leave of absence or did not indicate any future intention of resuming work; that in a discussion with the company's physician she claims she was upset because she was unable to take care of her child and keep house while working; and that she did not get in touch with her employer again until December of 1957, when she sought reemployment and there was no work available. These findings are supported by competent evidence and therefore binding on this Court. Antinopoulas Unemployment Compensation Case, 185 Pa. Super. 76, 137 A.2d 921 (1958).

In the application of these facts, we agree with the board that it is incumbent upon an employe who finds it necessary to leave work, to take reasonable steps to maintain the employment relationship. Flannick Unemployment Compensation Case, 168 Pa. Super. 606, 82 A.2d 671 (1951); Burton Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Super. 255, 119 A.2d 868 (1956); Junda Unemployment Compensation Case, 188 Pa. Super. 254, 146 A.2d 344 (1958). Failing to do so the claimant is deemed to have voluntarily left employment without a necessitous reason within the meaning of Section 402(b).

Decision affirmed.


Summaries of

Maltese Unempl. Compensation Case

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 6, 1959
152 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)

In Mahtese v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 190 Pa. Super. 123, 152 A.2d 773 (1959), an employee who quit due to emotional and physical stress without first discussing it with her supervisor or filing a grievance was found to have failed to exhaust all reasonable alternatives.

Summary of this case from Grier v. Employment Security
Case details for

Maltese Unempl. Compensation Case

Case Details

Full title:Maltese Unemployment Compensation Case

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 6, 1959

Citations

152 A.2d 773 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1959)
152 A.2d 773

Citing Cases

Yellow Cab Co. v. California Unemp. Ins. App. Bd.

In Indiana and New York cases, the employee's failure to report was held to constitute a voluntary leaving…

U.C.B.R. v. Brown

We find it unnecessary to deal with this question in light of the following language in Section 402(b)(2):…