Opinion
November 16, 1961.
December 14, 1961.
Unemployment Compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Emotional upset after reprimand by superior — Findings of fact — Appellate review.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant became angry when reprimanded by her superior, that the superior advised claimant that if she did not like it she could leave, and that claimant did not report to work on the next day and thereafter refused to return to work, it was Held that claimant had voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
2. Mikanowicz Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Super. 612, Held controlling.
3. Findings of fact by the board, supported by competent testimony, are binding upon the appellate court.
Before ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ. (RHODES, P.J., absent).
Appeal, No. 197, April T., 1961, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-62353, in re claim of Mary K. Beam. Decision affirmed.
August C. Damian, for appellant.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 16, 1961.
This is an appeal from the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming the decisions of the Bureau and the Referee that the claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, on the ground that she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
The claimant was last employed by Blakeley and Company, Incorporated, Pittsburgh, Pa., as a general office worker. Her last day of employment was August 10, 1960. The Board found that following a reprimand by her superior, who accused her of loafing, the claimant became angry, and the superior advised the claimant that if she did not like it, she could leave. Claimant denies this and alleges that the superior fired her as of August 12, 1960. The claimant did not report to work on August 11, but later in the day discussed the matter with the vice president, who suggested she return to work on August 15, but the claimant refused.
Claimant alleges that the record shows she did not leave voluntarily, but was discharged. However, the Board found otherwise, and since such finding is supported by competent testimony, it is binding upon this Court. Davis Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Super. 116, 144 A.2d 452.
The construction of the law in this case applicable to the facts as found by the Board, is ruled by Mikanowicz Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Super. 612, 115 A.2d 846, in which it was held that emotional upset over a reprimand imposed by the employer does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntary termination of employment.
Decision affirmed.