U.S. Banknote Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review

• Decision Date: 31 May 1990
• Parties: UNITED STATES BANKNOTE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.
• Court: Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court

Page 673

575 A.2d 673

133 Pa.Cmwlth. 317

UNITED STATES BANKNOTE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent.

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted April 27, 1990.

Decided May 31, 1990.

Malcolm L. Pritzker, with him, Steven R. Semler, Semler & Pritzker, for petitioner.

Clifford F. Blaze, Deputy Chief Counsel, for respondent.

Before CRAIG and COLINS, JJ., and NARICK, Senior Judge.

NARICK, Senior Judge.

United States Banknote Company (Employer) appeals from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversing a referee's decision that Diane M. Reitz (Claimant) was ineligible for benefits because she voluntarily abandoned her position. We affirm.

The facts as found by the Board are as follows. Claimant was employed at a rate of $7.74 per hour as an inspector for Employer from September 1987 to August 7, 1989. She began experiencing problems with her co-workers in March of 1988. In addition to subjecting her to harassing and insulting remarks, they spoiled her work by spilling water and coffee thereon. She brought these actions to the attention of her personnel manager.

When similar problems recurred in August of 1988, Claimant contacted her supervisor and again, the personnel manager. The result was Claimant's relocation to another department. Due to personnel shortages, Employer requested that Claimant work in her former department occasionally between September 1988 and August 1989. Because Claimant enjoyed the position in her former department very much she agreed to the temporary fill-in assignments.

While performing her duties in her former department, Claimant's co-workers again subjected her to harassment during the September 1988 to August 1989 time period. The Board found that on August 7, 1989, a printer remarked to Claimant that "a co-worker would soon sexually have charge of her." Claimant was so upset that she shut off her machine and removed herself from the job site.

On August 9, 1989, Claimant met with her Employer and union representative. At that time, she informed Employer as to why she left the premises on August 7, 1989. When asked by Employer if she would be willing to work in a different department or on another shift, Claimant indicated that she wanted to return to her former position. However, Employer later told Claimant that because she had walked off the job without expressing her concerns to either them or to her union representative, they would not reinstate her.

The Office of Employment Security issued a determination denying her benefits and the referee affirmed that decision. The Board reversed the referee on the basis that Claimant had informed Employer of her co-workers' harassment on at least two occasions. Also, it found the printer's remarks to her on August 7, 1989 to be of such a severe nature that Claimant had good cause reasons for voluntarily terminating her employment.

The issue before us is whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board's findings that Claimant had good cause to voluntarily leave work due to sexual harassment. Our Supreme Court has held that "[i]t is now axiomatic in an unemployment compensation case, that the findings of fact made by the Board ... are conclusive on appeal so long as the record, taken as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings." Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977) (citations omitted).

Additionally, this Court is bound "to examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the Board has found, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony ..." Id. at 355, 378 A.2d at 831. However, because Claimant abandoned her post voluntarily, the burden is on her to establish the necessitous and compelling nature of her volitional termination under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). ¹ Id.; St. Barnabas, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 106 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 191, 525 A.2d 885 (1987).

The Board made the following pertinent finding:

The continued harassment of the Claimant, of which the Employer was made aware twice previously, specifically the remarks directed to the Claimant on her last day of work concerning the possibility that a third party would sexually have their way with her,...