Summary
holding employee did not have good cause to quit after demotion for engaging in altercation with coworker
Summary of this case from Goodwin v. BPS Guard Services, Inc.Opinion
Argued January 9, 1976
February 4, 1976.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Burden of proof — Words and phrases — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Dissatisfaction with demotion.
1. To be entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, an employe voluntarily terminating employment must prove that such termination was for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature being dictated by the application of common sense and prudence to real, substantial and reasonable factors rather than facts which are imaginary, trifling or whimsical. [202-3]
2. Dissatisfaction with a demotion brought about by the employe's own misconduct does not constitute a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature justifying a voluntary termination of employment and the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. [203]
Argued January 9, 1976, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 606 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Ralph Tune, No. B-125038.
Application to 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.
Michael Saltzburg, for appellant.
Daniel R. Schuckers, Assistant Attorney General, with him Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, and Robert P. Kane, Attorney General, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied Ralph Tune (Claimant) compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
Claimant was last employed by Central Medical Pavillion as an Assistant Director of Security. During the workday on November 19, 1974, Claimant and a fellow employee engaged in an altercation stemming from a gambling debt. As a result, both employees were suspended and demoted.
Claimant and the Housekeeping Supervisor were both suspended for five days. The former was demoted to Security Supervisor, the latter to Team Leader.
After serving the suspension, Claimant was told to return to work as a Security Supervisor. Feeling that both the suspension and demotion were unfair, Claimant asked his employment be terminated.
To be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, an employee voluntarily terminating his employment must prove that termination was with cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, demonstrating that his conduct was consistent with ordinary common sense and prudence being based on real, substantial and reasonable factors and not on factors which are imaginary, trifling or whimsical. U.S. Steel Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 Pa. Commw. 71, 333 A.2d 807 (1975). Our review of the record discloses Claimant brought this demotion on himself. Mere dissatisfaction with one's working status or conditions does not constitute a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature so as to justify voluntary termination of employment and permit receipt of unemployment compensation benefits. Eckenrod v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 166, 325 A.2d 320 (1974); Stalc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commw. 131, 318 A.2d 398 (1974).
Therefore, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 4th day of February, 1976, the decision and order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.