Opinion
Argued March 13, 1980
April 29, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Burden of proof — Dissatisfaction with working conditions — Health problem.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, unless he proves that such termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. [98-9]
2. Dissatisfaction with working conditions is not a necessitous and compelling cause for terminating employment so as to permit receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by such employe unless it is established that such conditions changed after the initial employment or that the employe was deceived by the employer as to the nature of such conditions. [99]
3. An applicant for unemployment compensation benefits asserting that health problems presented a necessitous and compelling cause for terminating employment must adduce some competent medical evidence to support such allegation. [99]
Argued March 13, 1980, before President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges ROGERS and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 354 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Michael DeNofa, No. B-168389.
Application to 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.
Michael DeNofa, petitioner, for himself.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for respondent.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied unemployment compensation benefits to Michael DeNofa pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law finding that DeNofa had voluntarily terminated his employment without a necessitous and compelling reason. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
DeNofa was last employed as a clerk by The Yellow Cab Company. On May 19, 1978, he terminated his employment contending that there had been a substantial change in its terms and conditions which adversely affected his health; in particular, that his work load had been substantially increased without additional compensation or aid.
The burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving employment rests with claimant. Aluminum Co. of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 78, 324 A.2d 854 (1974). Mere dissatisfaction with wages and working conditions, the amount of work received or the lack of overtime is not a cause of a necessitous or compelling nature excusing voluntary termination of employment. Owen v. Unemployment Compensation Boaord of Review, 26 Pa. Commw. 278, 363 A.2d 852 (1976). DeNofa must establish a change in the conditions of his employment or that he was deceived as to or unaware of the condition, later alleged to be onerous, when he entered the employment relationship. Mosley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 447, 327 A.2d 199 (1974).
The record discloses that one week prior to his termination, DeNofa was transferred to a new garage with a greater number of cabs. However, the nature of the work at the new garage was substantially the same as that which he had performed at his previous work location and there were sufficient clerks to handle the increased work load.
In light of this evidence, we must conclude that DeNofa has not met his burden of proof.
Moreover, a claimant seeking to show that he has terminated his employment for a necessitous and compelling health reason must adduce some medical evidence to support his allegation that a physical disability justifies his decision to quit.
DeNofa was not under a doctor's care at the time of his separation and produced no medical evidence of health problems.
Accordingly, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of April, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-168389, dated January 25, 1979, denying unemployment compensation benefits to Michael DeNofa is affirmed.