Summary
In Rose v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 41 Pa. Commw. 127, 398 A.2d 749 (1979), the claimant terminated her employment after her husband's death in order to move out of state.
Summary of this case from Palmieri v. CommonwealthOpinion
Argued December 7, 1978
March 8, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Poor financial condition.
1. Voluntary termination of employment to move to another state because of a poor financial condition resulting from the death of a spouse is not for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature so as to permit the receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, in the absence of a showing that such relocation was the only alternative dictated by prudence which was open to the employe. [129-30]
Argued December 7, 1978, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1341 C.D. 1977, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Mary R. Rose, No. B-146062.
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.
Charles J. Morris, with him Pollock, Pollock Thomas, for appellant.
William J. Kennedy, Assistant Attorney General, with him Gerald Gornish, Acting Attorney General, for appellee.
Claimant Rose appeals from an adverse decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, affirming determinations of the referee and the Bureau of Employment Security, that claimant had voluntarily left her employment without cause of a necessitous or compelling nature and was therefore ineligible for benefits under 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).
Claimant was employed by North Penn Convalescent Home at an hourly rate of $2.35. Claimant's last day of work was November 26, 1975. The following day her husband died, and claimant returned to her employer for the limited purpose of terminating her employment.
There is no disagreement between the parties that claimant terminated her employment and moved to West Virginia, because she felt she would not be able to meet living expenses on her income alone while remaining in Pennsylvania. Claimant's family lived in West Virginia, where she owned her own home, and claimant anticipated that these factors would make her financial situation easier.
The Board found that on these grounds claimant had voluntarily terminated her employment for personal reasons which were not of a necessitous or compelling nature and therefore she was ineligible for benefits. We agree.
Claimant relies on our holding in Rettan Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 287, 325 A.2d 646 (1974), to bolster her position that a poor financial condition may constitute necessitous and compelling cause for termination of employment.
In Rettan, supra, claimant quit her job because she could not afford to purchase eyeglasses, which her employer required she wear as a prerequisite to her continued employment. We held under those circumstances that claimant did not leave her work voluntarily.
Unemployment is not voluntary if the circumstances present the employee with no alternative but to quit. Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa. Super. 548, 45 A.2d 898 (1946).
Here claimant has not dealt with the alternative of continuing the same employment and seeking to achieve lower living expenses in Pennsylvania.
The record indicates that continuing work was available to claimant. The record also indicates, and claimant admits, that she did not attempt to remain in Pennsylvania, where her employment was. There was no effort to lower her fixed monthly expenses in response to her new financial situation. Claimant did not show that she failed to secure less expensive living accommodations (rent being the largest part of her monthly budget) before she decided she could not afford to maintain herself and her job in Pennsylvania.
The Board found that terminating her employment under such circumstances, without substantial prospects of future replacement employment, was an exercise of personal preference in favor of living near her family in West Virginia. The finding is supportable; we cannot substitute a view that relocation was the only alternative dictated by the prudence which is required. Rizzitano Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa. Commw. 59, 377 A.2d 1060 (1977), Zinman Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 Pa. Commw. 649, 305 A.2d 380 (1973).
The record supports the Board's finding that claimant terminated her employment for personal reasons, so that she is not entitled to benefits.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 8th day of March, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at No. B-146062, dated June 7, 1977, is affirmed.