Opinion
Argued August 24, 1981
September 30, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Personality conflict — Fair hearing.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment because of a personality conflict does not terminate for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature and is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [117]
2. A claimant cannot be found to have been denied a fair hearing by an unemployment compensation referee for the reason that he did not understand her evidence, when her version of the facts was correctly reflected in the findings of the referee. [117-18]
Argued August 24, 1981, before Judges ROGERS, BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1976 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Kathleen M. Otterbeck, No. B-175091.
Application with the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Lee E. Crum, Crum and Crum, for petitioner.
John T. Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Richard Wagner, Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
The appellant in this unemployment compensation case, a claimant, admitted that she left her work for Prudential Insurance Company for what she described at the referee's hearing as a personality conflict with a supervisor which resulted in "rough working conditions," never clearly described. These reasons are not compelling and necessitous causes for quitting one's job and the compensation authorities' denial of benefits was clearly correct on the merits.
The claimant's further contention is that she was not afforded a full and fair administrative hearing because the referee did not understand, and therefore did not assist her in developing, her evidence concerning a corrective interview at which she contended that she was criticized for failing to do work placed in her assignment basket on her day off. On the contrary, the claimant's version of this incident was the subject of findings by both the referee and the Board of Review, both of which nevertheless correctly concluded that the claimant had not established a compelling and necessitous reason for voluntarily leaving her work.
Order affirmed.
PER CURIAM ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of September, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.