Summary
denying benefits to claimant dissatisfied with his commissions because this did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason to quit
Summary of this case from Hrinda v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
March 11, 1957.
June 11, 1957.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntarily terminating employment — Necessitous or compelling reasons — Dissatisfaction with earnings — Unemployment Compensation Law.
In an unemployment compensation case, in which there was evidence to support the finding of the board that claimant, an advertising solicitor on a commission basis with a weekly drawing account, terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with his earnings although his wages had not been decreased by his employer, it was Held that claimant failed to establish that the termination of his employment was due to necessitous or compelling reasons within the meaning of Section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and WATKINS, JJ.
Appeal, No. 14, March T., 1957, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, August 24, 1956, Decision No. B-42451, in re claim of Stanley Gardecki. Decision affirmed.
Stanley Gardecki, appellant, in propria persona.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Thomas D. McBride, Attorney General, for appellee.
Submitted March 11, 1957.
In this unemployment compensation case the claimant, Stanley Gardecki, was employed as an advertising solicitor on a commission basis with a $50. a week drawing account. He admits that he voluntarily terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with his earnings. The board of review affirmed a decision of the referee and the bureau that disqualified the claimant for benefits under section 402 (b) of the act. In this appeal he complained of the finding of the board that his average earnings fluctuated from $61.07 per week in 1953 to $64.09 per week in 1956 and contends there was a small decrease in his yearly earnings. He does not deny that the $50. a week drawing account remained constant and that any reduction was due to fluctuation in commissions.
The board found that the claimant voluntarily terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with his earnings although his wages were not decreased by his employer. There is evidence to support this finding. It is clear, therefore, that the claimant failed to establish that the termination of his employment was due to necessitous or compelling reasons within the meaning of Section 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law ( 43 P. S. § 802 (b)). Buletza Unemployment Compensation Case, 174 Pa. Super. 248, 101 A.2d 447 (1953); Goldstein Unemployment Compensation Case, 181 Pa. Super. 255, 124 A.2d 401 (1956); Drolles Unemployment Compensation Case, 181 Pa. Super. 575, 124 A.2d 159 (1956).
The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.