Spadaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.
Decision Date | 26 May 2004 |
Citation | 850 A.2d 855 |
Parties | Donald F. SPADARO, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent. |
Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Peter M. Suwak, Washington, for petitioner.
Judith M. Gilroy, Harrisburg, for respondent.
BEFORE: PELLEGRINI, Judge, and COHN, Judge, and FLAHERTY, Senior Judge. OPINION BY Senior Judge FLAHERTY
Donald F. Spadaro (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the referee's decision that Claimant voluntarily quit his employment making him ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.
The facts, as found by the Board, are as follows:
Board's Decision, September 8, 2003, Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1-16, at 1-2.
The Board affirmed the referee's decision on September 8, 2003. The Board found that Claimant was not discharged from his employment, that he quit his position when he told the supervisor that he quit. Board's Decision at 2. The Board also found that Claimant failed to demonstrate a necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily quitting his employment. Board's Decision at 3.
On appeal, Claimant contends that the Board erred in determining that he voluntarily terminated his employment, when he did not follow the voluntary termination procedures set by the company and the company refused to accept the withdrawal of his resignation. Claimant further contends that the Board erred in determining that his voluntary termination was not due to a necessitous and compelling reason due to an intolerable conflict with his supervisor and/or due to Claimant's medical condition.2
Section 402 of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b), states that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week:
(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, irrespective of whether or not such work is in "employment" as defined in this act: Provided, That a voluntary leaving work because of a disability if the employer is able to provide other suitable work, shall be deemed not a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature....
In Charles v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 122 Pa.Cmwlth. 439, 552 A.2d 727 (1989), we found that:
In a voluntary quit case, this court must first determine whether the facts surrounding petitioner's separation from employment constitute a voluntary resignation or a discharge.... Where an employee, without action by the employer, leaves or quits work, the employee's action is considered voluntary under the law.... Where an employee resigns in order to avoid the chance of being fired, that employee is deemed to have voluntarily quit.
Charles at 729 (citations omitted). See also, Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 167 Pa.Cmwlth. 386, 648 A.2d 124 (1994) ( ).
Initially, Claimant contends that his separation from his employment was not voluntary. Claimant bears the burden of proving his contention that his separation was involuntary. Helsel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa.Cmwlth. 320, 421 A.2d 496 (1980). Fekos Enterprises v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 776 A.2d 1018, 1021 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (citations omitted).
The Board found the testimony of Ron Morosko (Morosko), Claimant's Supervisor, credible. Morosko testified in pertinent part as follows:
Before we could pretty much get
through any of that, Don got upset, had some choice words.
Notes of Testimony, June 11, 2003 (N.T.), at 33.
A claimant who stated that he quit and walked off the job is not considered an employee thereafter. A company policy that requires an employee to give two-weeks notice when leaving its employment is for the protection of the employer, not the employee. An employee cannot use such policy to his benefit after he has realized that quitting his employment was in error.
Claimant also contends that he is entitled to benefits due to the fact that he attempted to revoke his resignation before the employer took steps to replace him. This is not quite accurate. An employee who revokes his resignation before the "effective date" of his resignation and before the employer took steps to replace him is entitled to benefits. See PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 40 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996). In the present controversy, Claimant only attempted to revoke his resignation after he had already left his position as shown by his returning his van and equipment and Employer's acceptance of which indicates Employer's acceptance of the resignation as final. Claimant's attempt to revoke after Employer's acceptance of the resignation fails because it is too late. The resignation became effective when it was clearly accepted.
Once it is determined that Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Watkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
...voluntary but he had cause of a necessitous or compelling nature that led him to discontinue the relationship. Spadaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 859–60 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004). In other words, in order to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits, the claimant bea......
-
Tynan v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
...conditions, or personality conflicts are not necessitous and compelling cause to terminate one's employment. Spadaro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 850 A.2d 855 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004); Creason v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 554 A.2d 177 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); Gackenba......
-
Holland v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. Of Review
...voluntary but he had a cause of a necessitous or compelling nature that led him to discontinue the relationship. Spadaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). Where an employee, without action by the employer, leaves or quits work, the employee's action ......
-
Porrini v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
...termination is essentially precluded unless the claimant has a conscious intention to leave his employment. Spadaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). On the other hand, to be interpreted as a discharge, the employer's language must possess the immedi......