Opinion
November 12, 1963.
December 12, 1963.
Unemployment Compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Test of ordinary common sense — Dissatisfaction with duties — Evidence — Credibility of witnesses — Findings of fact — Appellate review.
1. In unemployment compensation cases, the burden is upon claimant to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for having voluntarily terminated his employment.
2. In order to constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, the reason for an employe voluntarily leaving his employment must meet the test of ordinary common sense, and must be real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable not whimsical.
3. In unemployment compensation cases, the credibility of the witnesses is a matter for the board.
4. In unemployment compensation cases, the board's findings of fact, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive.
5. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant was employed in the construction of a restaurant, in the operation of which his employers were affiliated; that thereafter claimant began to work as a short order cook in the restaurant; that later the employers discussed with claimant his duties and the fact that they were not completely satisfied with the job he was doing; and that, subsequently, after he had worked over eleven months in the kitchen of the restaurant, claimant terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with the duties he had to perform as a kitchen worker; it was Held that claimant was properly denied benefits on the ground that his unemployment was due to his having voluntarily left work without a compelling and necessitous reason.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 195, April T., 1963, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-77568, in re claim of George M. White. Decision affirmed.
George M. White, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Walter E. Alessandroni, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 12, 1963.
In this unemployment compensation case benefits were denied claimant under section 402(b) (1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b) (1), on the basis that his unemployment was due to his voluntarily leaving work without a necessitous and compelling reason.
The bureau and the referee awarded benefits on the ground that claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his employment. On appeal the board reversed the referee and denied benefits under section 402(b)(1).
At the beginning of 1961, claimant was employed by Sill and Bergamasco in the construction of a restaurant in Doylestown, in the operation of which Sill and Bergamasco were affiliated. In May, 1961, claimant began to work as a short order cook in the restaurant. On March 27, 1962, the employers discussed with claimant his duties and the fact that they were not completely satisfied with the job he was doing. On March 30, 1962, claimant terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with the duties he had to perform as a kitchen worker. Claimant then returned to the Pittsburgh area to live.
Continuous employment was available to claimant, and the burden rested upon him to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating his employment. Domico Unemployment Compensation Case, 198 Pa. Super. 327, 328, 181 A.2d 731.
The reason for leaving the employment must meet the test of ordinary common sense, and must be real not imaginary, substantial not trifling, and reasonable not whimsical. Naugle Unemployment Compensation Case, 194 Pa. Super. 420, 422, 168 A.2d 783.
Claimant worked over eleven months in the kitchen of the restaurant where continuous employment was available. Claimant contends that he was hired as a construction worker, and that he was unable to perform the duties of a cook. The employer's testimony conflicted. Thus factual questions were raised.
The credibility of the witnesses is a matter for the board. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Super. 400, 403, 116 A.2d 271. The board's findings of fact, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive. Progress Manufacturing Company, Inc., v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 406 Pa. 163, 176 A.2d 632.
Our review of the evidence indicates that the board's findings are fully supported by the evidence and show claimant's disqualification under section 402(b) (1) of the Law.
The decision is affirmed.