Szojka v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 14 November 1958
• Citation: 146 A.2d 81,187 Pa.Super. 643
• Parties: Louis J. SZOJKA, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

146 A.2d 81

187 Pa.Super. 643

Louis J. SZOJKA, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

November 14, 1958.

Nicholas G. Petrella, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Sydney Reuben, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas D. McBride, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before RHODES, P. J., and HIRT, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN and WATKINS JJ.

WATKINS, Judge.

In this unemployment compensation case the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review disqualified the claimant for benefits in that he terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature as required by the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law of December 5, 1936, P.L. 2897, as amended, 43 P.S § 802(b).

The board found that the claimant appellant, Louis J. Szojka, was last employed on June 28, 1957 as a punch press operator by Penco Metal Products, which was located at Swanson and Oregon Avenues, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He had been absent from work due to an injury and on his return he was requested to take a week's vacation because the plant was moving from its Philadelphia location to Oaks, Pennsylvania, which is about 32 miles from Philadelphia. The employees had been notified of this change of location several months prior so that they could make the necessary transportation arrangements.

The board found further that this appellant reported to the new plant location on July 12, 1957 and informed his employer that he did not intend to work there because of the transportation difficulties involved; that the plant at Oaks is accessible to the appellant by means of public transportation which requires less than two hours of travel time; and that other employees formed car pools, but the appellant did not attempt to secure transportation by this means because he did not wish to work so far from his home. The board's findings are supported by ample competent evidence and cannot be disturbed. Robinson Unemployment Compensation Case, 1958, 186 Pa.Super. 279, 142 A.2d 341.

The only question left for discussion is whether the transportation difficulties support the burden of the appellant to establish a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving his work.

Here, the distance to his work was 32 miles and there was public transportation that would require less than two hours travel time. More than 100 of his fellow employees in the Camden and...