Geraci v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – March 20, 2015 – unreported memorandum opinion - can be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
Claimant
who quit job to train for potential job held not eligible, since he had no firm
offer of employment.
The
court has consistently held that a firm offer of employment and its acceptance
constitutes a necessitous and compelling cause for quitting. Solar
Innovations, 38 A.3d at 1056. “‘The offer of employment . . . must
be definite’ . . . and ‘the claimant must act prudently with regard to
his employer.’” Id. (citations omitted). However, we have also
“consistently held that the mere possibility of obtaining another job, without
a firm offer of employment, is insufficient to establish that employment was
terminated for good cause.” Fernacz v. UCBR, 545 A.2d 995, 997 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1988).
As a
matter of law, acceptance of a job that is contingent upon successful
completion of a training program for only the prospect of better employment, as
is the case here, does not constitute the requisite necessitous and compelling
cause to qualify for UC benefits under the Law. See Fernacz, 545 A.2d at
997. “[A]lthough ‘the claimant may have personal, economic, or career reasons
for making h[is] decision to leave the employer . . . that does not constitute
a necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily quitting.’” Solar
Innovations, 38 A.3d at 1057 (citation omitted).
________________
This summary is also posted at the PLAN Legal Update http://planupdate.blogspot.com/,
which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that event, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/,
where the opinions of all state appellate courts can be found.
