Yingling v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 28 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 127 C.D. 2019,127 C.D. 2019 |
| Citation | 228 A.3d 289 |
| Parties | Daryl YINGLING, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Respondent |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Rebecca Waldemar, Harrisburg, for Petitioner.
Daniel R. Schramm, Assistant Counsel, Harrisburg, for Respondent.
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge, HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge, HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH
Daryl Yingling (Claimant) petitions for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) dated January 8, 2019, affirming the decision of a referee denying him benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 The Board concluded that Claimant failed to establish a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily terminate his employment. Upon review, we reverse.
Claimant, a resident of the Commonwealth, worked for Blinn College (Employer), located in Austin, Texas, from October 23, 2017, until June 29, 2018, as a full-time apartment manager. (Certified Record (C.R.) at Item Nos. 1, 2, 9, Findings of Fact (F.F.) No. 1.) Claimant voluntarily resigned from his employment, and thereafter filed for unemployment compensation benefits. (C.R. at Item Nos. 2, 9, Notes of Testimony (N.T.) at 10; F.F. No. 27.) The local service center determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, 43 P.S. § 802(b). (C.R. at Item No. 5.) Claimant timely appealed the local service center's determination and a hearing was subsequently held by a referee on October 5, 2018, to consider whether Claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating his employment. (C.R. at Item Nos. 8, 9.)
Claimant and Tiffany Jenkins (Ms. Jenkins), Employer's Director of Human Resources, testified at the hearing. Claimant testified that when he accepted the job he was told that he was expected to work Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that an assistant apartment manager (Assistant Manager) would work Sunday through Thursday from 3:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. (N.T. at 10; F.F. No. 2.) Claimant explained that he was responsible for managing seven apartment buildings, which totaled 338 rooms and housed 338 students. (N.T. at 11; F.F. No. 4.) Further, Claimant explained that he was also in charge of seven student staff members (resident assistants). (N.T. at 10; F.F. Nos. 3, 4.) Claimant was also responsible for managing the student population within each of the buildings, checking students in and out, replacing lost keys, responding to emergencies and crises, being on-call, mediating conflicts with residents, responding to complaints, managing violations, preparing biweekly supervisory reports and weekly maintenance reports, completing daily walk-throughs, working with custodial staff, and helping students. (N.T. at 11; F.F. Nos. 6, 8.)
Claimant testified that he understood that the Assistant Manager would split the duties with him and would be responsible for helping with any excess workload, maintenance requests, weekly meetings with staff members, and managing staff members. (N.T. at 13-14.) Claimant testified that he was told at the beginning of his employment that a full-time Assistant Manager would be hired. (N.T. at 13.) Claimant also explained that he asked his supervisor, Kayla Batterton (Ms. Batterton), when the Assistant Manager would be hired both before he arrived for his first day of work and on his first day of employment, and several more times in October, November, and December of 2017. Id. Claimant testified, however, that an Assistant Manager was never hired. (N.T. at 13; F.F. No. 5.) Claimant stated that he asked Ms. Batterton for assistance in performing his responsibilities, but that he was not given assistance as she believed that he did not need help performing his job duties. (N.T. at 14-15; F.F. No. 7.) Claimant stated that he felt that the lack of help was negatively affecting him. Id.
Claimant explained that during the 2018 spring break he asked Ms. Batterton to discuss his situation. Id. Claimant testified that Ms. Batterton was not willing to do anything to remedy the situation. Id. Claimant testified that he then complained to Human Resources, and was referred to Ms. Jenkins and spoke to her on April 18, 2018. (N.T. at 17; F.F. No. 14.) He testified that he told Ms. Jenkins about his concerns regarding his troublesome working conditions, health-related issues, and problems arising from the fact that an Assistant Manager was not hired. (N.T. at 17, 27.)2
Claimant explained that Ms. Jenkins told him that she would address the issues with Ms. Batterton and Peter Rivera (Mr. Rivera), the Director of Residence Life. (N.T. at 17; F.F. No. 17.) Claimant explained that as of May 3, 2018, his situation was improving. (N.T. at 18; F.F. No. 18.) However, Claimant testified that the improvement did not last, and shortly thereafter his working conditions deteriorated because he was not given any help after two staff members quit. (N.T. at 18; F.F. No. 20.) He explained that he complained again to Ms. Batterton, who told him that there was plenty of help and that he did not need any more assistance. Id. Claimant testified that he then complained to Ms. Jenkins again on May 21, 2018, about the difficult working conditions and that he felt like a slave, had no free time, and had continuing health issues. Id. Ms. Jenkins suggested that he raise the issues with his supervisors directly, and if that did not resolve the situation to bring his concerns to the executive leadership of his department. (N.T. at 19, 34; F.F. No. 21.)
Claimant testified that he spoke to Mr. Rivera about his working conditions, but Mr. Rivera did not address his concerns. Id. Claimant explained that the lack of help and unsuccessful meetings made him feel like he did not have a chance to address his concerns and that nothing would change. (N.T. at 19-21.) Claimant explained that by that time, he estimated he was working 70-80 hours a week. (N.T. at 21.) In Claimant's last meeting with Mr. Rivera, on June 25, 2018, Claimant was again upset, but was told "you better work your butt off or this is not the right job for you." (N.T. at 22; F.F. No. 22.) Claimant was subsequently advised by Ms. Batterton that he was required to work on Sunday July 3, 2018, in order to check students in and out, and would not be provided additional help. (N.T. at 24; F.F. No. 24.) Claimant explained that because he was required to work on July 3 and was not getting any assistance or relief from his supervisors or Human Resources, he decided to quit. (N.T. at 25.) Before he resigned, Claimant attempted to contact Ms. Jenkins; however, because she was not in the office, he spoke with another human resources employee, Margaret Hoaty (Ms. Hoaty), who advised him to write a resignation letter. (N.T. at 24; F.F. Nos. 25, 26.) On June 29, 2018, Claimant resigned from his position. (N.T. at 24.) He explained that, although he intended to tell Ms. Jenkins why he was resigning, she was not in the office and so he resigned without telling her. Id.
Ms. Jenkins testified that Claimant complained to her about his working conditions. (N.T. at 31.) With respect to the Assistant Manager not being hired, Ms. Jenkins stated that Claimant told her he felt misled because he was told that an Assistant Manager would be hired, however, one had not been hired. Id. Ms. Jenkins testified that Employer had attempted to hire an Assistant Manager and actually started the process of interviewing candidates. (N.T. at 31.) She explained, however, that in early October 2017, Employer determined that its search had failed and decided to repurpose the position. (N.T. at 32.) She testified that she was unaware if anyone told Claimant the position would not be filled. Id.
Regarding Claimant's other complaints, Ms. Jenkins testified that most of Claimant's complaints revolved around his claims of lack of support and lack of appreciation. (N.T. at 32.) She stated that after her meeting with Claimant on April 18, 2018, she spoke with the vice chancellor of student services, who then spoke with Mr. Rivera. Id. She testified that she subsequently spoke with Claimant on May 3, 2018, and he told her that he had noticed some improvement. (N.T. at 33.) However, she explained that Claimant contacted her again on May 21, 2018, and told her that his situation had worsened. (N.T. at 34.) Ms. Jenkins stated that she told him to speak to his supervisors directly. Id. Ms. Jenkins explained that Claimant attempted to contact her before he resigned, but that she was out of the office so she did not respond. Id.
The referee made the following, pertinent, findings of fact:
To continue reading
Request your trial