Opinion
July 26, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Scope of appellate review — Error of law — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Dissatisfaction with working conditions.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment must prove that such termination was for a cause of necessitous and compelling nature to qualify for unemployment compensation benefits. [626]
2. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof did not prevail below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to questions of law and whether findings of fact can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [626]
3. Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions is not a necessitous and compelling cause for terminating employment, and an employe terminating for such a reason is not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits when suitable work was available to that employe had she not quit. [626]
Submitted on briefs, March 1, 1982, to President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges ROGERS and BLATT, Sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 102 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Helen Parducci, No. B-190561.
Application with the Office 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.
Judith Brown Chomsky, for petitioner.
Francine Ostrovsky, Associate Counsel, with her Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Helen Parducci appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review which denied her benefits on a finding of voluntary quit. We affirm.
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).
Parducci, a packer in the kitchen of Superior Provisions, had been employed since 1973 averaging 30 to 33 hours a week, depending on the volume of orders. In May 1980 she sought a guaranteed 36-hour work week, a guarantee which her employer could not make because of his straitened financial condition.
The record indicates that, at a meeting held with the union employees, the employer extracted a unanimous vote that they would continue to work whatever hours were available rather than seek a guaranteed number of hours because of the employer's precarious financial position.
Parducci then, aided by her union representative, executed a separation agreement by which she would leave with a number of benefits thus permitting the employer to cease kitchen operations.
Parducci has asserted that a separation agreement does not indicate that there was a voluntary quit. She cites for this proposition Philadelphia Parent Child Center, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 44 Pa. Commw. 452, 403 A.2d 1362 (1979). This case is clearly distinguishable in that the separation letter signed in that case was not voluntarily signed because the claimant was offered the option of signing or being fired and had not initiated the preparation of the letter. Here, the record supports the conclusion that Parducci, with the help of her union representative, initiated the preparation of the agreement.
Parducci now asserts that the closing of the kitchen constituted a cause of necessitous and compelling reason for her termination, there being no work available for her. The employer testified that he discontinued the operation because he was unable to meet her demands.
It should be known by all now that a claimant has the burden of proof to prove a voluntary quit was for a cause of necessitous and compelling reason. Helsel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 320, 421 A.2d 496 (1980). Where the party with the burden of proof has not prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to questions of law and whether the findings of fact can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Dennis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commw. 215, 423 A.2d 458 (1980).
Whether a claimant voluntarily terminated her employment is a question of law for this Court. York Tape and Label Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa. Commw. 163, 435 A.2d 305 (1981). There, however, is a presumption of the suitability of work which a claimant must overcome, Martelli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa. Commw. 137, 435 A.2d 303 (1981), and mere dissatisfaction with hours and wages is not enough to overcome that presumption. Id.
We hold that the Board did not capriciously disregard evidence in finding that Parducci initiated the termination of her employment because she was dissatisfied with working conditions and that suitable work would have been available if she had not terminated.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-190561 dated December 15, 1980, is affirmed.
Judge MENCER did not participate in the decision in this case.