Opinion
April 5, 1984.
Unemployment compensation — Burden of proof — Voluntary termination of employment — Necessitous and compelling cause — Scope of appellate review — Medical problems — Notice — Immediate supervisor.
1. In an unemployment compensation case involving a voluntary termination of employment, the claimant has the burden of proving cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for leaving her employment. [366]
2. When the party with the burden of proof in an unemployment compensation case does not prevail before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited by its scope of review to determining whether the Board's findings are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law, and whether they can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [366-7]
3. In an unemployment compensation case, medical problems may constitute the requisite necessitous and compelling cause for terminating one's employment; and the employee's notice requirement is satisfied by communicating with the employee's immediate supervisor concerning the medical condition. [368]
Submitted on briefs December 8, 1983, to Judges WILLIAMS, JR., BARRY and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 3267 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Miriam Pryor, No. B-189867-B.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Gary M. Gusoff, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Miriam Pryor (claimant) petitions for review of the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), dated November 30, 1981, denying benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Act) (voluntary termination without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature) to the extent permitted by Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Fabric, 24 Pa. Commw. 238, 354 A.2d 905 (1976).
This is the second petition for review filed by the claimant in this matter. After the claimant's first petition for review, the claimant and the Board, through counsel, stipulated that the case should be remanded to the Board for another hearing and reconsideration by the Board. Upon the Board's application for remission, this Court granted same. Thereafter, a hearing was held and, after consideration of the supplemented record, the Board vacated its decision, dated November 22, 1980 and issued the decision now under review.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
In Fabric, we held that when a claimant voluntarily leaves part-time employment, without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, he is rendered ineligible for further benefits only to the extent that his benefits were decreased by virtue of his part-time earnings.
The facts are not in dispute. The claimant was a part-time mail carrier with the U.S. Postal Service (employer) for approximately six months. On May 31, 1980, she voluntarily terminated her employment due to an ovarian ailment which periodically rendered her unable to perform her duties. She was advised by her physician that she would not benefit from a leave of absence. Accordingly, the claimant notified her immediate supervisors of her health problems, and beginning in February, 1980, inquired into the availability of other positions with her employer. Nevertheless, the claimant was unsuccessful in her efforts to secure alternate work.
In a voluntary termination case, a claimant has the burden of proving cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for leaving her employment. Gennaria v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 75 Pa. Commw. 354, 461 A.2d 918 (1983). Where, as here, the burdened party has not prevailed before the Board, we are limited to determining whether the Board's findings are consistent with each other and with its conclusions of law, and whether they can be sustained without a capricious disregard, of competent evidence. Berardi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commw. 549, 458 A.2d 668 (1983). Medical problems may constitute the requisite cause for voluntarily terminating one's employment. Gennaria.
In support of its denial of benefits, the Board contends only that it should be affirmed because the claimant did not notify any persons in the employer's organization other than her immediate supervisors of her health problems and her resultant inability to perform her job duties. The Board's brief acknowledges our Supreme Court's latest refinement of the law in this area in Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982), which eliminated the requirement that a claimant must specifically request a transfer to alternate suitable work with the employer in order to meet her burden of proof. The Board's findings of fact also acknowledge that adequate health reasons existed in this case at the time of termination to justify the claimant's termination and that she notified her immediate supervisors of her health problem. Yet, the Board now makes the unsupported assertion that she must go beyond her immediate supervisors to some higher authority within the employer's organization in order to satisfy Genetin. We do not agree.
The Board, in its brief, apparently foresakes, as a basis for holding the claimant ineligible, her failure to request a leave of absence even though the Board also relied on such grounds in the "Discussion" section of its decision. Even if the Board had attempted to maintain this theory, its efforts would be to no avail. We have recently held that there is no such requirement on a claimant under Genetin. See Dornblum v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa. Commw. 547, 466 A.2d 747 (1983), and Evasovich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 80 Pa. Commw. 395, 471 A.2d 921 (1984).
In Central Data Control v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commw. 465, 458 A.2d 335 (1983), we held that a claimant who has proven that an adequate health condition existed at the time of termination and that notice of such was given to the employer, need only "stand ready to accept any reasonable accommodation offered by the employer," Id. at 469, 458 A.2d at 338. Here, the Board found that the claimant made several attempts on her own to secure other work from the employer. Clearly, under such circumstances, she was ready to accept any reasonable accommodation from the employer had such an offer been forthcoming.
When an employe communicates to an immediate, supervisor notice of a medical condition which prevents further job performance the notice requirement of Genetin is satisfied. We believe that not only is such a conclusion consistent with Genetin, it is required by the remedial nature of the Act which mandates a broad and liberal construction. See Schaeffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa. Commw. 634, 467 A.2d 67 (1983). Furthermore, we believe that the interpretation advanced by the Board is inconsistent therewith and that the Board erred in imposing the additional notice requirement on the claimant. Gennaria.
Accordingly, we must reverse the Board and remand to the Board for computation of benefits due the claimant.
Due to our reversal of the Board under Section 402(b)(1), we need not address the Fabric issue.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of April, 1984, the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated November 30, 1981, No. B-189867-B, is hereby reversed and the matter is remanded to the Board for computation of benefits due the claimant.
Jurisdiction relinquished.