For
transportation inconvenience to constitute necessitous and compelling cause “a
claimant must establish that the inconvenience presented an insurmountable
problem and that he took reasonable steps to remedy or overcome the problem
prior to terminating employment.” Pollard, 798 A.2d at 817. However, where a
claimant makes a laudable effort to maintain employment and is thereafter
forced to terminate his employment due to stressful circumstances and
insurmountable commuting problems, “the decision to terminate employment rises
above mere personal whim or choice and instead represents a reasonable response
to causes of a necessitous and compelling nature.” Speck v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Review, 680 A.2d 27, 31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).
There
is a presumption that an unemployed worker who registers for UC benefits is
able and available for work. Penn Hills Sch. Dist. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Review, 496 Pa. 620, 437 A.2d 1213 (1981). Here, Employer offered no evidence
that Claimant was not available for work.
--------------------------
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.
