Opinion
November 11, 1953.
December 29, 1953.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntarily leaving employment — Good cause — Manager of diner — Closing diner without notice to employer — Unemployment Compensation Law.
In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, employed as a manager of a diner and paid on a salary basis, dismissed the help and closed the diner without notice to his employer; and that claimant gave contradictory reasons for his action, including the statement that the food supply was insufficient to continue the operation of the diner, which reasons were contradicted by the employer; it was Held that claimant had not established any reasonable justification or necessitous circumstances for leaving his employment which constituted good cause within the meaning of § 402 (b) of the Act of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, ROSS, GUNTHER and WRIGHT, JJ.
Appeal, No. 37, March T., 1954, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review dated August 3, 1953, Decision No. B-34960, in re claim of Herbert E. Wright. Decision affirmed.
Herbert E. Wright, appellant, in propria persona.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Frank F. Truscott, Attorney General, for appellee.
WOODSIDE, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Argued November 11, 1953.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, after hearing, disallowed claims for unemployment compensation benefits on the ground that claimant voluntarily left his last employment without good cause. Section 402 (b) of the Act of December 5, 1936, P. L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802 (b). Claimant has appealed from the Board's decision to this Court.
Claimant was employed as manager of a diner in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, from September, 1952, until April 17, 1953, when he dismissed the help and closed the diner without notice to his employer. Claimant was paid a salary. He gave contradictory reasons for his action. The final one upon which he relied was that the food supply was insufficient to continue the operation of the diner. His various reasons, including the last, were contradicted by the employer who testified that there was ample food supply on hand to continue operations indefinitely. The employer further testified that claimant was not authorized to close the diner, that claimant was not discharged, and that claimant could have continued his employment if he had so desired. In any event, claimant being paid on a salary basis in his employment, any curtailment in food purchases and any decrease in business as a result thereof would not have affected the claimant or his employment.
Claimant did not establish any reasonable justification or necessitous circumstances for leaving his employment. See Green Unemployment Compensation Case, 174 Pa. Super. 286, 101 A.2d 119; O'Donnell Unemployment Compensation Case, 173 Pa. Super. 263, 98 A.2d 406.
The evidence clearly supports the Board's finding and conclusion that claimant voluntarily quit his employment, and that he established no reason which could be construed as constituting good cause for his action.
Decision of the Board is affirmed.