Intermediate
Unit 1 v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – January 6, 2016 – unreported memorandum
opinion
Court
upheld UCBR finding of good cause for claimant to quit her job where
- claimant’s work was part-time
- employer relocated her workplace
- claimant commute increased 66
miles per day
- no public transportation
- claimant suggested several changes
that would allow her to keep her job, including working more hours on fewer
days
no
capricious disregard
Court
rejected employer argument that UCBR capriciously disregarded evidence that
claimant’s proferred reason for resignation was pretextual. It held
that the board was free to accept claimant’s testimony and reject employer’s. “Disturbing
an agency’s adjudication for a capricious disregard of evidence is appropriate
only where the factfinder has refused to resolve conflicts in the evidence, has
not made essential credibility determinations or has completely ignored
overwhelming evidence without comment,” neither of which was true in this
case. Wise v. UCBR, 111 A.3d 1256, 1263 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2015).
good
cause established
Generally,
in order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, a claimant
must establish that: (1) circumstances existed that produced real and
substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) like circumstances would
compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted
with ordinary common sense; and (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to
preserve her employment. Procito v. UCBR, 945 A.2d 261, 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
“Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature may arise from domestic
circumstances and need not be connected with or arise out of the claimant’s
employment.” Green v. UCBRw, 529 A.2d 597, 598-99 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Transportation problems may constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling
nature. Lee v. UCBR, 401 A.2d 12, 13 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). A claimant’s
transportation problems, however, “must
be so serious and unreasonable as to present a virtually insurmountable problem
and the claimant must demonstrate that he or she took reasonable steps to
remedy or overcome the transportation problems prior to severing the employment
relationship.” Id.
reasonableness
of employer action in changing claimant’s work condition is not relevant
Employer’s
focus on the reasonableness of its actions and whether Claimant was aware of
the possibility that her job could be relocated is “misplaced” and not relevant
to the inquiry. Employer may have been entirely reasonable in its decision, and
it may have informed Claimant of the possibility that her job may be moved. The
focus, however, is on whether, following the relocation of her job, Claimant
had necessitous and compelling reasons to resign voluntarily her employment. The
reasons for the change in employment terms and conditions are irrelevant, as
“[i]t is not a defense for the employer to merely establish that it had good
reasons for the unilateral change.” Chavez (Token) v. UCBR, 738 A.2d 77, 82
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), appeal denied, 761 A.2d 551 (Pa. 2000).
----------------------------
This case is also reported in
the PLAN Legal Update http://planupdate.blogspot.com/
, which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.
An unreported Commonwealth
Court case may not be cited binding precedent but can be cited for its
persuasive value. See 210 Pa.
Code § 69.414(b) and Pa. R.A.P.
3716
If the case is old, the link
may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case name, court,
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
