Opinion
March 2, 1984.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Commuting distance.
1. Dissatisfaction with a forty mile commuting requirement is not a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for a voluntary termination of employment such as to permit an employe quitting work for such reason to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [583-4]
Submitted on briefs before Judges CRAIG, DOYLE and BARBIERI, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1374 C.D. 1982, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Henrietta L. Slaseman, No. B-250626.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Recoupment of overpayment of benefits ordered. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial of benefits affirmed. Applicant filed request for reconsideration. Request denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
William B. Anstine, Jr., Anstine Anstine, for petitioner.
Michael D. Alsher, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
This unemployment compensation case comes before us on an appeal by Henrietta L. Slaseman (Claimant) from the denial of benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on the ground of ineligibility under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law because her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving her work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. We will affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
The facts are that Claimant's employer, Colebrook Terry, Inc., closed the plant where she was working in York and offered her employment in the Colebrook plant. The place of employment in York is 19 miles from her home and the place of employment in the Colebrook plant is 39 miles from her home. After test-driving the distance to the Colebrook plant and, on the advice of her husband, Claimant refused employment in Colebrook.
The sole issue in this case is whether a requirement to drive an additional forty miles per day constitutes, in and of itself, a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment.
We have held that even a sixty mile commute, in and of itself, is not a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment. Musguire v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 Pa. Commw. 137, 415 A.2d 708 (1980). Since Claimant offered no reason other than dissatisfaction with the additional forty mile commute per day for terminating her employment, and since this reason, under the facts and circumstances of this case, is not legally sufficient, we will affirm. See Churley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 324, 410 A.2d 1309 (1980).
ORDER
Now, March 2, 1984, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-205626, dated May 13, 1982, is affirmed.