Opinion
April 12, 1956.
July 17, 1956.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Good cause — Substantial and reasonable cause — Burden of proof — Findings of board — Appellate review.
1. To constitute good cause for voluntary termination of employment, the circumstances compelling the decision of the employe must be real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, reasonable not whimsical.
2. In an unemployment compensation case, findings of fact by the board, supported by substantial, competent evidence, are binding on the appellate court.
3. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, employed as a short order cook at a restaurant, became involved in an argument with the proprietor's wife, who also worked at the restaurant, and instead of going to work walked off the job, and that continuing employment would have been available to claimant had she chosen to remain on her job, it was Held that claimant had not sustained the burden of showing good cause for voluntarily terminating her employment
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, and CARR, JJ.
Appeal, No. 21, April T., 1956, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated October 6, 1955, No. B-40086, in re claim of Anna M. Wall. Decision affirmed.
Anna M. Wall, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
Sydney Reuben, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Herbert B. Cohen, Attorney General, for appellee.
Argued April 12, 1956.
Claimant in this unemployment compensation case was employed as a short order cook at Dorothy's Restaurant in Monongahela. When she reported for work on August 26, 1954 she became involved in an argument with the wife of the proprietor who also worked at the restaurant and instead of going to work she walked off the job. Claimant subsequently called the employer, told him she was quitting and never again returned to work. Continuing employment would have been available to her had she chosen to remain on the job. The foregoing is contained in the findings of fact of the referee, which were adopted by the board. These findings are supported by substantial, competent evidence and are therefore binding upon us. D'Yantone Unemployment Compensation Case, 159 Pa. Super. 15, 46 A.2d 525 (1946).
Claimant was disqualified by the bureau, by the referee and by the board under the section of 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P. L. 2897 (1937), as amended, 43 P. S. § 802 (b), which provides that an employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which his unemployment is due to his voluntarily leaving work without good cause.
As a general proposition, an employe who is out of work by his own decision is thereby removed from the protection of the Unemployment Compensation Law. This general rule is qualified to the extent that an unemployed worker may be eligible even though he voluntarily left work, if his leaving was prompted by good cause. We have held time and again that to constitute good cause, the circumstances compelling the decision to leave employment must be "real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, reasonable not whimsical . . .": Sturdevant Unemployment Compensation Case, 158 Pa. Super. 548, 557, 45 A.2d 898 (1946). Applying these principles to the instant case, we are of the opinion that the claimant has not sustained the burden of showing such compelling and necessitous circumstances.
The decision is affirmed.