James v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 25 October 1972
• Citation: 6 Pa.Cmwlth. 489,296 A.2d 288
• Parties: Florence P. JAMES, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 288

296 A.2d 288

6 Pa.Cmwlth. 489

Florence P. JAMES, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 12, 1972.

Decided Oct. 25, 1972.

[6 Pa.Cmwlth. 490] Community Legal Services, Inc., Law Center West, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Asst. Atty. Gen., Unemployment Compensation Bd., J. Shane Creamer, Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for appellee.

Before KRAMER, MENCER and ROGERS, JJ.

OPINION

KRAMER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) disallowing an appeal from an adjudication of a Referee of the Board, denying the claim of Florence P. James (James) for unemployment compensation.

James had been in the employ of I-T-E Imperial Corporation of Philadelphia for two years as a wirer and solder prior to January 15, 1971, when she voluntarily terminated her employment. On June 17, 1971, James filed an application for unemployment compensation giving as her reason 'too much tensions.' After a denial of her claim by the Bureau of Employment Security, a hearing was held before a Referee of the Board. James was the only witness at that hearing. The Referee concluded that James had not met the burden of proof requisite to show a compelling and necessitous cause for voluntarily terminating her employment as required by Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, 2d Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

'An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week--(b)(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . .'

The Board in effect affirmed the Referee's decision.

James appeals to this Court on the contention that the record discloses the reason for her voluntary termination of employment; i.e. that she had been discriminated against because of her race.

The scope of review by this Court is outlined in Section 510 of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 830, wherein it is stated:

'In any appeal . . . the findings of the board or the referee, as the case may be, as to the facts, if supported by the evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and in such cases the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to question of law. . . .'

This Court in recent cases has followed the holding of the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa.Super. 400, 116 A.2d 271 (1955) where the court stated:

"The credibility of the witnesses, the weight of their testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it are for the board. Our duty is performed by studying the testimony in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the board has found, giving that party the benefit of every inference which can be logically and reasonably drawn from it." (Citations omitted). 178 Pa.Super. at 403, 116 A.2d at 272.

See Cleaver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 Pa.Cmwlth. 255, 290 A.2d 279 (1972) and Philadelphia Coke Division, Eastern Associated Coal Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 Pa.Cmwlth. 37, 293 A.2d 129 (1972).

In...