Opinion
No. 1224 C.D. 2012
11-05-2012
Keith Welty, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Keith Welty (Claimant), pro se, appeals from the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) May 31, 2012 order affirming the Referee's decision and denying Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. Claimant essentially presents one issue for this Court's review: whether the UCBR erred by concluding that Claimant voluntarily left his employment without a necessary and compelling reason. We affirm.
Claimant had a full-time vault position in York, Pennsylvania with Dunbar Armored, Inc. (Employer) from February 18, 2009 until November 28, 2010. In November 2010, Claimant, who was originally from Pittsburgh, decided to move back there because he "was missing home, [a]nd [his] grandparents were having some difficulties. So [he] was going to [go] home and help them." Original Record, Notes of Testimony, March 22, 2012 (N.T.), at 7. Claimant spoke to his branch manager about transferring to Pittsburgh. Claimant also spoke to Employer's General Manager in Pittsburgh about a transfer. Claimant was advised that Employer did have an open position in Pittsburgh, and that, when he arrived in the Pittsburgh area, he should contact the General Manager about the position.
When Claimant relocated to Pittsburgh and contacted the General Manager, he was advised that the position had already been filled. On December 5, 2010, Claimant filed an application for UC benefits. On February 2, 2012, the Duquesne UC Service Center issued a Notice of Determination, finding that Claimant was eligible for benefits based upon its conclusion that Claimant had voluntarily quit to accept other work, and had a definite job offer. Employer appealed and a hearing was held before a Referee on March 22, 2012. On March 30, 2012, the Referee reversed the UC Service Center's determination, finding that Claimant did not have a definite job offer in the Pittsburgh area, that Claimant's move was for personal reasons and, thus, Claimant had not met his burden of establishing a necessary and compelling reason for terminating his employment. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On May 31, 2012, the UCBR adopted and incorporated the Referee's findings and conclusions, and affirmed the Referee's decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.
This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed. Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 869 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).
Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law states that a claimant shall be ineligible for benefits for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature . . . ." 43 P.S. § 802(b). In order to establish eligibility for benefits, a claimant who asserts that he left employment for a necessary and compelling reason has the burden of proving that: "(1) circumstances existed which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) such circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted with ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve his employment." Phila. Hous. Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 29 A.3d 99, 101 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). --------
Whether a claimant had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to quit a job is a conclusion of law subject to review by this Court. It is well-established that . . . the receipt and acceptance of a firm offer of employment does constitute termination for cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The offer of employment, however, must be definite, and the claimant must act prudently with regard to his employer. [T]he mere possibility of obtaining another job is insufficient to establish that employment was terminated for good cause. In addition, although the claimant may have personal, economic, or career reasons for making his decision to leave the employer . . . that does not constitute a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily quitting.Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 38 A.3d 1051, 1056-57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Claimant asserts that the findings of fact relied upon by the UCBR are incorrect. Specifically, Claimant contends that he had a firm offer of employment, and that he would not have moved to Pittsburgh had he not already obtained employment. We disagree.
[I]t is well settled that the [UCBR] is the ultimate finder of fact in unemployment compensation proceedings. Thus, issues of credibility are for the [UCBR] which may either accept or reject a witness' testimony whether or not it is corroborated by other evidence of record. Findings of fact are conclusive upon review provided that the record, taken as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the findings.Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citations omitted).
The Referee's determination that Claimant did not have a firm job offer, as adopted by the UCBR, was based upon Employer's witnesses' testimony that Claimant was expected to interview for the Pittsburgh position, and Claimant's own testimony that "[Employer's General Manager] said [he] was meeting with her and that there was a position. So [he] had the belief that [he] would be getting that position." N.T. at 10. Claimant also admitted that there was not a guaranteed start date for the position in Pittsburgh. N.T. at 10. When evaluating whether a job offer is definite, this Court has considered whether a specific position, a fixed rate of pay and a scheduled start date have been set. See Twp. of N. Huntingdon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 768 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). Based upon the aforementioned testimony, it is clear that Claimant did not have a definite job offer. Although Claimant was to be considered for the position, an offer for the position had not been extended to Claimant at the time he terminated his employment in York. Thus, we conclude that the UCBR did not err when it affirmed the Referee's decision that Claimant did not terminate his employment for a necessary and compelling reason.
In addition, the UCBR did not err when it concluded that Claimant failed to demonstrate necessary and compelling reasons based upon his grandparent's difficulties. This Court has stated:
Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature may arise from domestic circumstances and need not be connected with or arise out of the claimant's employment. Family obligations or joining a spouse at a new location can constitute a necessitous and compelling reason to leave one's employment. However, a claimant voluntarily terminating employment for family obligations must establish that the action was reasonable and undertaken in good faith. The actual reasons may not be purely personal.
Although the preservation of the family unit is socially desirable, this desire to maintain the family unit is not in and of itself sufficient cause to terminate employment and become eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.Green v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 529 A.2d 597, 598-99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (citations omitted). The mere assertion that Claimant was returning home, in part, because his grandparents were "having some difficulties," without any other evidence, is insufficient to support a finding that he terminated his employment for necessary and compelling reasons. N.T. at 7.
For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of November, 2012, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's May 31, 2012 order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge