Opinion
October 15, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Voluntary termination — Insufficient findings — Remand.
1. When decisions of unemployment compensation authorities are in conflict in a case and findings are inadequate for a reviewing court to determine the question of whether an employe voluntarily terminated his employment or whether the employer sustained his burden of proving a discharge for wilful misconduct, the matter must be remanded for new and adequate findings. [383]
Submitted on briefs September 13, 1982, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges BLATT and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeals, Nos. 2768 C.D. 1981, 2769 C.D. 1981 and 2770 C.D. 1981, from the Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in cases of In Re: Claim of Carlos Quinones, No. B-200356; In Re: Claim of Julio Matos, No. B-200357; and In Re: Claim of Luciano Rosado, No. B-200358.
Applications with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Applications denied. Applicants appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed as modified. Applicants appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Orders vacated. Cases remanded.
David A. Scholl, for petitioners.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him, Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Carlos Quinones appeals an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order affirming a referee's denial of benefits. We vacate and remand.
This appeal was consolidated with the appeals of Julio Matos and Luciano Rosado.
Quinones was a laborer at Nu-Econo-Brick. Because his work area was poorly heated, he was permitted to leave. Upon returning two days later, his job was gone.
The Employment Security Office found a voluntary quit and denied benefits under Section 402(b) of the Act. On appeal, the referee affirmed the denial but for a different reason of willful misconduct due to excessive absenteeism under Section 402(e). The Board affirmed the referee.
Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
43 P. S. § 802(e).
Before this Court, the Board now argues that Quinones voluntarily quit rather than arguing in support of its conclusion that Quinones was guilty of willful misconduct.
Quinones contends that he was awaiting recall. Neither the Board nor the referee considered this explanation for his absence.
In a willful misconduct case, the employer has the burden of proving misconduct. Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, ___ Pa. ___, ___, 436 A.2d 179, 181 (1981).
The question of whether a claimant voluntarily quit or was fired is one of law subject to our review, Wing, as is his burden of rebutting the quit finding. O'Donnell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 66 Pa. Commw. 105, ___, 443 A.2d 864, 865 (1982). There is insufficient evidence for us to make that legal determination. We will not infer from the absence of findings on a relevant issue that the issue was resolved against a claimant.
Vacated and remanded.
ORDER
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review Orders, Nos. B-200356, B-200357 and B-200358, all dated October 20, 1981, are vacated and the cases are remanded to the Board for the making of new and adequate fact finding.