Opinion
Argued May 11, 1979
June 13, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Conflicting evidence — Health problems.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, and, when evidence supports a determination that no abuse or threats were directed at the employe which he claimed constituted the cause for his termination, such a determination will not be disturbed on appeal although contrary evidence was also received, as the resolution of such conflicts is for the factfinder, not the reviewing court. [356]
2. An employe, asserting that health problems constituted a necessitous and compelling cause for his voluntary termination of employment and that he thus remained eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, must prove that he adequately advised his employer of such problem and requested lighter or more suitable work prior to his resignation. [356-7]
Argued May 11, 1979, before Judges BLATT, DiSALLE and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1611 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Richard P. Stacy, No. B-160488.
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.
Edward Van Stevenson, Jr., for appellant.
GuruJodha Singh Khalsa, Assistant Attorney General, with him Reese F. Couch, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Justin Blewitt, Acting Attorney General, for appellee.
Richard P. Stacy (Claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which affirmed a referee's decision denying him benefits pursuant to 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).
There is no question in this case but that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment. Claimant takes the position, however, that the Board erred in concluding that he did not have necessitous and compelling reasons for leaving. He avers that, in the two months that he worked as an administrative assistant for One Grandview Restaurant, he was verbally abused and physically and verbally threatened. His employer categorically denied these allegations. Even Claimant's witness testified that he was not aware of any specific threats directed towards Claimant. The fact-finder, whose duty it is to resolve conflicts in the testimony, obviously believed the employer. Since there is substantial evidence in the record to support the finding that Claimant was not verbally abused or threatened, we are unable to conclude that the Board erred.
Claimant also alleges that the employer's conduct necessitated treatment by a physician for acute anxiety. Be that as it may, the testimony clearly establishes that he did not adequately apprise his employer of his health problems or request lighter or more suitable work prior to his resignation. Having failed to comply with these requirements, it is clear that Claimant voluntarily quit his job without necessitous and compelling cause. Benefits were properly denied.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 13th day of June, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated June 21, 1978, denying benefits to Richard P. Stacy, is hereby affirmed.