Wednesday, June 27, 2012

UC - voluntary quit - 42% decrease in pay

New Castle Area Transit Authority v. UCBR - June 27, 2012 - unpublished memorandum opinion

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/2325CD11_6-27-12.pdf

Claimant had good cause to quit when his work assignment changed because of medical issues and his wages decreased from $18.75 per hour to $10.85 per hour.

"[A] substantial reduction in pay can constitute a ‘necessitous and compelling’ cause for voluntarily terminating one’s employment. It is true that there is no talismanic percentage figure that separates a substantial reduction from one that is not. Each case must be measured by its own circumstances." Ship Inn, Inc. v. UCBR, 412 A.2d 913, 915 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980).

While this Court has found "a 3.1[%] pay cut is not a substantial figure sufficient to establish necessitous and compelling cause[,]" Pacini v. UCBR, 518 A.2d 606, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986), this Court in Ship Inn found that a 22% cut in salary was a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntary employment termination. Similarly, this Court in Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. UCBR, 430 A.2d 376 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) affirmed the UCBR’s award of benefits where the Claimant voluntarily terminated his employment due to a 25% wage reduction.

In the instant case, Claimant was offered a job at a wage rate of 42% less his final hourly wage. Clearly, this wage reduction is a substantial cut, thereby, establishing a necessitous and compelling cause for Claimant to voluntarily terminate his employment. Accordingly, the UCBR did not err in concluding the same.

_________________

The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial Opinions.

Administrative law - burden of proof

Victory Support Services v. DPW - Cmwlth. Court - June 27, 2012 - unpublished memorandum decision


http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/1849CD11_6-27-12.pdf

The burden of proof at an initial hearing on an agency’s order is on the agency to justify its action. See B.K. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 36 A.3d 649 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); S. Hills Health Sys. v. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare, 510 A.2d 934 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (the party asserting the existence of certain facts bears the burden of proving them).

________________

The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial Opinions.

Welfare - adultBasic - Tobacco Settlement Agreement - Pa. Constitution, etc.

Sears. v. Corbett - Cmwlth. Court - June 27, 2012 (en banc 5-2)

http://www.pacourts.us/OpPosting/Cwealth/out/121MD11_6-27-12.pdf

Suit to compel state to allocate monies, as per Tobacco Settlement Agreement, that would maintain adultBasic program.

On defendants' preliminary objections, the court held that

* sovereign immunity - Suits which seek to restrain state officials from performing affirmative acts are not within the rule of immunity - POs overruled

* unlawful redirection of Master Settlement Agreement funds - "If these monies had not been redirected, it appears that there would have been sufficient funding for adultBasic in 2011. Thus, Respondents’ preliminary objection in this regard must be overruled.

* Pa. Constitution, Article I, sec. 3 - single subject rule - The statute deals with "multiple diverse subjects" - possible violation of single subject rule - POs overruled

* legislative power vested in General Assembly - petitioners' claim under this section held to be justiciable

* standing - Preliminary objection that, to the extent that their second amended petition for review challenges any provisions of the Fiscal Code amendments unrelated to adultBasic, Petitioners lack standing upheld by court

* class action - court cannot rule on propriety of a class action until the close of the pleadings

>