Summary
concluding that even if a supervisor's accusations regarding the claimant's work performance were untrue, they were not delivered in an offensive or profane manner and were not so uncalled for as to leave the claimant with no alternative but to resign, as work performance is a legitimate concern of a supervisor
Summary of this case from Decker v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
Argued April 6, 1981
September 4, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Necessitous and compelling cause — Burden of proof — Dissatisfaction with working conditions — Resentment of reprimand — Fair hearing.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits unless he proves that such termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and a mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or resentment of a reprimand is not such a cause unless it is established that such reprimand was unjust, abusive or accompanied by profane language. [521]
2. The existence of a personality conflict with one's superior is not a necessitous and compelling cause for terminating employment such as to retain eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. [522]
3. An unemployment compensation referee has no obligation to advise a claimant without counsel on evidentiary matters or aid him in developing legal theories and due process is satisfied when the claimant is given a full and fair opportunity to present his case. [522-3]
Argued April 6, 1981, before Judges MENCER, BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 304 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Albert A. Lauffer, No. B-180018.
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.
Dennis J. Gounley, for petitioner.
Francine Ostrovsky, Assistant Attorney General, with her James Bradley, Assistant Attorney General, Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.
The petitioner, Albert A. Lauffer, seeks review of a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which determined that conflicts which occurred between the petitioner and his supervisor did not rise to the level of necessitous and compelling cause for terminating his employment. We affirm.
Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
The petitioner contends that the referee capriciously disregarded uncontroverted testimony that the petitioner's supervisor unjustifiably accused him of being a liar, that he was blamed by that supervisor for allowing his men to drink on the job, again without cause, and that the supervisor demanded too much night work from him. He maintains that such actions produced pressures which were real and substantial and would compel a reasonable person to resign from his employment.
The petitioner has the burden of showing that he had good cause for quitting, and a mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or resentment of a superior's criticism without a demonstration of unjust accusations, abusive conduct or profane language is insufficient to meet that burden. Krieger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 Pa. Commw. 103, 415 A.2d 160 (1980).
The Board found that the supervisor's comments were not delivered in an offensive or profane manner and our review of the record discloses that the petitioner's own testimony established that, although profanity may have been used on one occasion, such language was considered to be acceptable in the workplace and the petitioner did not find it to be objectionable. Furthermore, even if we were to accept the petitioner's assertion that the supervisor's accusations were untrue, we must agree with the Board that he did not establish that the reprimands he received were so uncalled for as to leave him no alternative but to resign his employment. The record shows that the comments to which he objects were directly related to employee relations and work performance which are legitimate concerns of the petitioner's superior and that a personality conflict existed between the two individuals. Such a conflict, however, does not amount to good cause for terminating employment. Maiers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 Pa. Commw. 338, 409 A.2d 956 (1980).
The petitioner also argues that he was not given a fair hearing because he was not represented by counsel and the referee failed to help him develop his testimony adequately. Merely because a claimant is not represented by counsel, however, does not mean that he was denied a full and fair hearing, and absent a showing that the referee improperly refused to admit competent and material evidence we cannot say that the petitioner here was deprived of due process. Kogel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 609, 411 A.2d 1273 (1980); Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Tumolo, 25 Pa. Commw. 264, 360 A.2d 763 (1976). Moreover, the referee is not required, as the petitioner argues, to advise the petitioner on evidentiary matters or to help him develop alternative theories of law. DeMeno v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 413 A.2d 796 (1980). Our review of the record reveals that the referee did not act improperly, and in fact that the petitioner was given a full opportunity to develop his case.
We are aware that our Supreme Court in Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Ceja, ___ Pa. ___, 427 A.2d 631 (1981), stated that a referee should specifically inform a claimant of his right to have counsel present, but, inasmuch as such language was contained in only a plurality opinion, it is not binding on this Court, and the petitioner has not himself challenged the referee's failure to give such an instruction here.
We will therefore affirm the Board's denial of benefits.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 1981, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.