Opinion
No. 2243 C.D. 2014
06-18-2015
Geraldine Savoy, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Geraldine Savoy (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the November 12, 2014, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming a referee's decision to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits pursuant to section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b). Under section 402(b) of the Law, a claimant is ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which [her] unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature." 43 P.S. §802(b).
Claimant worked full-time from 2008 until August 31, 2013, as the director of the Micro-Enterprise Resource Center for the Montgomery County Community Action Development Commission (Employer). Claimant previously worked for Employer from 2003 to 2005. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-2.)
Claimant's department worked in the same building as the weatherization department. Claimant's duties included renting out office space in the building for start-up businesses. The weatherization department needed additional funding to stay in the building. In 2012, the director of the weatherization department and three staff members informed Claimant that they were going to assist Claimant in renting out space in the building. (Id., Nos. 3-6.)
On December 5, 2012, Employer's executive director, Claimant's supervisor, told Claimant that she needed to rent the office space to any business that was willing to pay. Claimant believed that the weatherization department did not have a right to force her to rent space to raise money so that it could stay in the building. The weatherization department advertised the space and agreed to rent office space to an individual. Claimant found that the tenant did not have insurance, a business checking account, or a good reputation. Claimant believed that the tenant was not a legitimate business, and that the decision to rent the space to the individual should not have been made without her involvement. (Id., Nos. 7-12.)
Claimant talked to Employer's executive director about the tenant and was told that Employer needed the rental money. Claimant submitted a resignation letter that did not state her reason for quitting. On August 31, 2013, Claimant resigned from her employment because the weatherization department rented out office space to a tenant she believed was not a legitimate business. (Id., Nos. 1, 13-15.)
Claimant's last day of work was August 31, 2013. The UCBR uses the correct date in Findings of Fact No. 1, but misstates the date in Findings of Fact No. 15.
On June 22, 2014, Claimant applied for UC benefits, which the local service center denied. Claimant appealed this determination to a referee. After a hearing on September 2, 2014, the referee affirmed the service center's denial of UC benefits.
Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On November 12, 2014, the UCBR affirmed the referee's decision, finding Claimant ineligible for UC benefits under section 402(b) of the Law because Claimant did not have a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily quitting her job. Claimant petitioned this court for review.
Our review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
Before this court, Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in concluding that she lacked a necessitous and compelling cause to quit her employment. We disagree.
A voluntary quit is not an absolute bar to the recovery of UC benefits. See 43 P.S. §802(b). Rather, a claimant seeking UC benefits after a voluntary quit has the burden of proving a necessitous and compelling cause for quitting. Id. To show a necessitous and compelling cause, the claimant must establish that: "'(1) circumstances existed [that] produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) such circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted with ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment.'" Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 A.3d 1051, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (citation omitted).
Here, Claimant contends that she quit her job with Employer because of defective communications, i.e., Employer's executive director would meet with the director of weatherization and Claimant would not be included in the meetings. Further, Claimant argues that Employer assigned her duties, such as renting out office space to fund the weatherization department, that were beyond the duties and responsibilities of her employment, which interfered with the work she was hired to perform.
The UCBR determined that Claimant's reasons did not amount to a necessitous and compelling cause for quitting her employment. We agree. It is well settled that an employee's mere dissatisfaction with wages, work assignments, working conditions, or personality conflicts does not create necessitous and compelling cause to terminate his or her employment. Spadaro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (determining that "[m]ere dissatisfaction with one's working conditions is not a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating one's employment"); Porco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 828 A.2d 426, 429 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (determining that a claimant who fails to exhaust all of her alternatives in attempting to preserve her employment fails to prove a necessitous and compelling cause for quitting); Creason v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 554 A.2d 177, 179 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (determining that resigning due to potential personal conflicts and dissatisfaction with working conditions and wages does not amount to a necessitous and compelling cause to quit).
Questions of witness credibility and evidentiary weight are within the UCBR's sole province, and the UCBR's findings are conclusive on appeal as long as the record contains substantial evidence to support them. Spiropoulos v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Here, Claimant testified that she quit because she did not want to rent out office space for the benefit of the weatherization department and was excluded from conversations regarding the rental of the office space. This merely amounts to Claimant being dissatisfied with her work assignments and working conditions and having a personal conflict with the director of the weatherization department. Further, Claimant did not inform Employer why she was quitting. The UCBR's findings are supported by substantial evidence, including Claimant's own testimony. Claimant failed to show any circumstances that produced pressure to terminate her employment, that terminating her employment was reasonable, that she acted with ordinary common sense, or that she attempted to preserve her employment.
"Multiple causes, which as individual causes are not necessitous or compelling, do not in combination become necessitous and compelling." Spadaro, 850 A.2d at 860. --------
Because Claimant failed as a matter of law to establish a necessitous and compelling cause for quitting her employment, the UCBR properly upheld the denial of UC benefits under section 402(b) of the Law.
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 18th day of June, 2015, we hereby affirm the November 12, 2014, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge