UC - vol. quit - transportation problems
RAME Inc. v. UCBR – Cmwlth Court – 9-6-13 – unreported memorandum opinion
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.