Opinion
June 11, 1981.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Fear of lengthy layoff — Effort to preserve employment.
1. Fear of a lengthy layoff which substantial evidence indicates was unfounded based upon past circumstances and conduct is not a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating employment, and an employe so terminating employment is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [647]
2. Employes seeking unemployment compensation benefits must take at least minimal steps in an effort to preserve employment. [647]
Submitted on briefs, May 8, 1981, to President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges ROGERS and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1206 C.D. 1980, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of William C. Taylor, No. B-163511-B.
Application with the Office 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. Case remanded. ( 49 Pa. Commw. 59) Denial affirmed by Board. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Kenneth B. Burkley, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
Joseph Mack, III, Thorp, Reed Armstrong, for intervenor.
William C. Taylor appeals a second Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order denying benefits based upon a voluntary termination of his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling reason. We affirm.
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).
In Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commw. 59, 410 A.2d 400 (1980), the record revealed that a December 27, 1977 layoff notice was posted on the employer's bulletin board for a January 3, 1978 inventory, that repeated attempts at recall were made, and that Taylor had made a trip to Oklahoma for the purpose of seeking employment without contacting or notifying his employer at any time. We remanded for findings of fact on whether Taylor was justified in relying upon a proposed employment history of lengthy layoffs. The Board determined on remand that claimant not only had a "prior history of participating in layoffs of both short and long duration" but "was not given any reason to believe that the layoff following December 29, 1977 would be of longer duration than shown on the bulletin board."
Taylor essentially argues that the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence and that the circumstances do not justify his denial of benefits. We disagree.
Having reviewed the combined record, we must conclude that the Board's decision is supported by substantial evidence and that benefits were properly denied. Although there may be some discrepancy over whether the layoff was advertised for only "one day," we have repeatedly held that the burden is clearly on an employee to take the necessary minimal steps required to preserve his employment, especially where the employee becomes unavailable for recall by his employer. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Metzger, 28 Pa. Commw. 571, 368 A.2d 1384 (1977).
Affirmed.
ORDER
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order, dated April 17, 1980, Decision No. B-163511-B, is affirmed.