Opinion
No. 145 C.D. 2012
11-01-2012
Baskin's Auto, Inc., Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
Baskin's Auto, Inc. (Employer), petitions for review of an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that reversed the Referee's denial of benefits to Charles B. Baskin, Jr. (Claimant) under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).
The Board initially remanded the matter and scheduled another hearing "to inform the parties that the Board will consider the written and verbal statements attributable to the claimant's father as competent evidence...." Remand Order, August 31, 2011, at 1; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 80a.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b).
The Board made the following relevant findings of fact:
1. The claimant was last employed as a mechanic by Baskins Auto, Inc., and his last day of work was on or about August 19, 2010.
2. The employer is owned by the claimant's father, and his father's girlfriend.
3. The claimant's father is president and the father's girlfriend is vice-president.
4. The claimant's father was involved in a car accident and criminal charges were filed against him.
5. In mid-August 2010, the claimant's father told the claimant that the business was going to close and that he was going to lay Claimant off at the end of the week.
6. The employer already laid off another employee.
7. On or about August 19, 2010, the claimant's father called the claimant and told him that he needed to find other work.
8. The claimant understood that he was laid off as of that time and he did not return to work thereafter.
9. The employer alleges that the claimant abandoned his position and that continuing work was available.
10. The claimant had no intention of abandoning his position.
11. The employer closed its business in December 2010.
....
DISCUSSION:
....
Based upon the [Findings], which are supported by the claimant's credible testimony, the Board concludes that the claimant did not quit his position. The language of the claimant's father, who was part-owner, had the immediacy and finality of a discharge. The Board finds that the verbal and written statements attributed to the claimant's father are party admissions. Therefore,
because the claimant did not quit his position, he is not ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.Board's Decision and Order, January 6, 2012, Findings of Fact Nos. 1-11 and Discussion at 2; R.R. at 5a.
On appeal, Employer raises two issues. First, Employer contends the Board erred when it determined that Claimant met his burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting his job. Second, Employer argues that the Board's decision was not based on substantial evidence and the award of benefits should be reversed.
Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether errors of law were committed, and whether findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Beddis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 1053, 1055 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). This Court will review the case in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Board, drawing all logical and reasonable inferences from the testimony in order to determine if substantial evidence exists. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977). --------
Employer contends that the Board erred when it determined that Claimant met his burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting his job.
Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(b), provides that a claimant shall be ineligible for compensation in any week in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Where an unemployment compensation claimant alleges that he or she terminated employment for necessitous and compelling reasons, claimant has the burden of establishing the existence of such reasons.
Whether a termination of employment is voluntary is a question of law subject to this Court's review. The failure of an employee to take all reasonable steps to preserve employment results in a voluntary termination. Westwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). Good cause for voluntarily leaving one's employment results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner. Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Employer argues that the Board erred when it determined that Claimant shouldered his burden of establishing that he had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting his job with Employer. Employer fails to comprehend the Board's decision. The Board did not determine that Claimant proved he had a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily quit. Rather, the Board determined that Claimant "had no intention of abandoning his position" with Employer. Board's Decision and Order, Finding of Fact No. 9, at 2; R.R. at 5a. Because the Board did not determine that Claimant voluntarily quit, Employer's argument is irrelevant.
Employer next contends that the Board's decision that Claimant met his burden of proving that he had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting was unsupported by substantial evidence and the award of benefits should be reversed. Once again, Employer misreads the Board's decision. The Board determined that Claimant was not ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) because he did not quit his job, not because he had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting.
Assuming arguendo that Employer contends that the Board's decision was unsupported by substantial evidence, this Court does not agree.
Here, Claimant credibly testified that his father "said he was going to lay me off." N.T. 5/11/11, at 5; R.R. at 54a. The Board determined that the "claimant understood that he was laid off as of that time and he did not return to work thereafter." Board's Decision and Order, Finding of Fact No. 8, at 2; R.R. at 5a. In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate finder of fact, empowered to resolve conflicts in evidence, assess the credibility of witnesses, and determine the weight of the evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright, 347 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).
"Findings made by the [Board] are conclusive and binding on appeal if the record, examined as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the findings." Owoc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 809 A.2d 441, 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Wheelock Hatchery, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 648 A.2d 103, 105 n. 3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). A review of the record reveals there was substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Claimant met his burden.
Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of November, 2012, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge