Decker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 110419 PACCA, 293 C.D. 2019
|Docket Nº:||293 C.D. 2019|
|Opinion Judge:||ELLEN CEISLER, Judge|
|Party Name:||Janet E. Decker, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent|
|Judge Panel:||BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge|
|Case Date:||November 04, 2019|
|Court:||Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania|
OPINION NOT REPORTED
SUBMITTED: September 20, 2019
BEFORE: HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
Janet E. Decker (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the January 24, 2019 Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision of a Referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. The Board concluded that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1 because she voluntarily quit her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. We affirm the Board's Order.
Claimant worked as a part-time commercial cleaner for Class A Cleaning L.L.C. (Employer), a commercial and residential cleaning service, from April 22, 2018 through September 11, 2018. Bd.'s Finding of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1, 3. Claimant's job duties were to dust, sweep, vacuum, and clean. Id. No. 4. Claimant's primary assignment for Employer was to clean the offices of Employer's client, Masco Cabinetry (Masco). Id. No. 5.
On September 10, 2018, Claimant's shift was scheduled to begin at 3:00 p.m. Id. No. 6. Shortly before beginning her shift, Claimant met with Employer's president, Stanley Nichols, concerning allegations that Claimant had not completed all of her job duties the previous evening. Id. No. 7; Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 12/3/18, at 9. During his meeting with Claimant, Mr. Nichols contacted the employee in charge of the Masco account, Kaylie Ingersol, who told Mr. Nichols that Masco was dissatisfied because crumbs had not been vacuumed from an office the previous evening, which attracted ants. Bd.'s F.F. No. 8; N.T., 12/3/18, at 9, 15. Claimant was upset about the allegation that she had failed to complete her assigned work, but she did not inform Mr. Nichols about her dissatisfaction with the allegation. Bd.'s F.F. No. 9.
Around 1:00 a.m. on September 11, 2018, after she had completed her shift, Claimant left a handwritten resignation letter in Mr. Nichols' internal mailbox. Id. No. 10; N.T., 12/3/18, at 10-12 & Claimant's Ex. 1. Employer had continuing work available for Claimant had she not resigned. Bd.'s F.F. No. 11.
Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits with the local UC Service Center. The Service Center found that although "Claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting," she did not inform Employer of her reason and "there was a reasonable expectation that the Employer could have provided an alternative to resolve the situation." Record (R.) Item No. 5. Thus, the Service Center denied Claimant's claim for UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.
Claimant timely appealed to the Referee, who held a telephone hearing on December 3, 2018. Claimant appeared pro se and testified on her own behalf. Employer presented the testimony of its president, Mr. Nichols. Following the hearing, the Referee determined: [C]laimant testified [that] she became upset after [Mr. Nichols] made allegations about [C]laimant's failure to perform her job duties...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP