Opinion
No. 1946 C.D. 2012
04-04-2013
Gregory Lynn Eckenrode Sr., Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
Gregory L. Eckenrode, Sr. (Claimant) challenges the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the referee's denial of benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) and the denial of Emergency Unemployment Compensation (EUC) benefits under Section 4001(b) of the 2008 amendments to the Emergency Unemployment Act of 2008 (EUC Act).
Act of December 5 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b).
Title IV of the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 2008, Public Law 110-252, 122 Stat. 2323, Section 4001, 26 U.S.C. §3304.
The facts, as initially found by the referee and confirmed by the Board, are as follows:
1. For purposes of this appeal, the claimant was last employed on April 19, 2012, as a full-time security officer for Schaad Detective Agency, earning $9.25 per hour.Referee's Decision, July 26, 2012, (Decision) at 1-2.
2. Part of the claimant's job duties included taking phone calls and transferring them to the Knouse Foods plant.
3. During the course of the claimant's employment, there were some issues with dropped calls.
4. On April 19, 2012, the claimant was advised that based on these dropped calls that the employer needed to remove him from this assignment.
5. Schaad Detective Agency is contracted with Knouse Foods as well as other area businesses.
6. The employer advised the claimant that he would be transferred to a work location in Waynesboro, Pennsylvania.
7. The claimant did not advise the employer that he would have transportation difficulties in going to Waynesboro to work.
8. On April 19, 2012, after meeting with supervision [sic], the claimant laid his badge on the desk and left the employer's facility.
9. The employer considers the claimant's actions to be abandonment of his post.
10. The claimant was not ordered to leave by his supervisors.
11. Continuing work was available to the claimant.
12. On April 19, 2012, the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment due to his dissatisfaction with having his work location changed.
The referee determined:
Here, the claimant voluntarily resigned his employment with Schaad Detective Agency due to his dissatisfaction with his work location change. Continuing work was available. On April 19, 2012, the claimant was advised that he would be replaced at the Knouse Foods site based on dropped calls that were made to the plant. The claimant did not agree with the dropped call issue and did not advise the employer that he would be unable to transfer to a Waynesboro, PA location. The employer did not order the claimant to leave the facility at that time. The claimant was still responsible for his shift on April 19, 2012. However, during the shift, the claimant laid his badge on the desk and left his post. The claimant made no attempt to return to this employment relationship. Accordingly, the claimant did not make a good faith effort to remain gainfully employed with Schaad Detective agency and benefits must be denied.Decision at 2.
The Board affirmed and adopted the referee's findings and conclusions. The Board made the following additional determinations:
The Board resolves the conflicts in testimony in favor of the employer. The Board rejects the claimant's testimony that he left his post, turning in his badge, because he believed that he was terminated from employment and could be cited for trespassing on Knouse's property. The Board also rejects the claimant's testimony that he quit because he did not have transportation to Waynesboro, which the employer should have known. The claimant did not inform the employer at the time of notification of the transfer of any transportation issues nor did the claimant take the time to explore any alternate means of transportation before walking off the job shortly after being informed of the
transfer. The claimant has not proven that he had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit.Board Opinion, September 27, 2012, at 1.
Claimant contends that the Board erred when it determined that Claimant was in the wrong when it concluded he was ineligible for benefits.
This Court's review in an unemployment compensation case is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or essential findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
Whether a termination of employment is voluntary is a question of law subject to this Court's review. The failure of an employee to take all reasonable steps to preserve employment results in a voluntary termination. Westwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 1281 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). An employee voluntarily terminating employment has the burden of proving that such termination was necessitous and compelling. The question of whether a claimant has a necessitous and compelling reason to terminate employment is a question of law reviewable by this Court. Willet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 429 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Good cause for voluntarily leaving one's employment results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner. Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
Claimant argues that circumstances existed which produced a real and substantial pressure for him to terminate employment because he was told he could no longer work at the Knouse Foods location and he was concerned that if he did not leave, he could have faced trespassing charges. Claimant argues a reasonable person would have behaved in the same manner. Further, Claimant argues that he made a reasonable effort to preserve his employment because he told Schaad Detective Agency that he could not work at the other site due to transportation issues.
The Board explicitly rejected the credibility of these assertions. In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate factfinding body empowered to resolve conflicts in evidence, to determine the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight to be accorded evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright, 347 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975). Findings of fact are conclusive upon review provided that the record, taken as a whole, provides substantial evidence to support the findings. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 378 A.2d 829 (1977). The Board did not err when it found Claimant lacked a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating his employment.
Accordingly, this Court affirms.
Claimant also asserts that Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(b), does not exist, which is clearly false. --------
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of April, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge