WFG
Natl. Title Insurance Co. v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – June 25, 2015 – unreported memorandum
opinion
Claimant
worked as a vice president of agency sales. His compensation was an annual
salary of $105,000, plus commission. In
September 2013, Employer advised Claimant that he would be working under the
direction of a new supervisor. In light of problems involving harassment and
profanity that he was experiencing with his former supervisor, however,
Claimant deemed it time to “go on the record” and registered a formal complaint
with Employer’s human resources department outlining the behavior of his former
supervisor and how it had increased his anxiety and led to a higher dose of
medication. Although Employer conducted
an investigation, it dismissed Claimant’s allegations and took no disciplinary
action against the former supervisor.
In
October, 2013, Claimant’s new supervisor presented him with an itemization of
new goals and expectations for the fall of 2013. Part of the new plan involved the exclusion
of Claimant’s top two income producing clients, something that would would
result in a pay decrease of approximately 15% - 20% yearly.” Another part of the new plan included the
expectation that Claimant would achieve an average of ten new agents per month,
despite that fact that Employer, as a whole, “achieve[d] only slightly higher
than ten new agents per month.” Soon
thereafter, Claimant met with both his former and current supervisors,
expressing his dissatisfaction with the new plan. In response, they advised
Claimant that there would be no changes and that “he would be expected to
conform to the new expectations.” Claimant believed that the new plan
constituted retaliation for his formal complaint. Claimant quit his job “due to his belief [that] the new goals
and expectations represented a unilateral change to his job duties and
contained unachievable expectations.”
A
claimant bears the burden of proving necessitous and compelling cause for
leaving his or her job. In order to show such cause, the claimant must
establish that: “(1) circumstances existed which produced real and substantial
pressure to terminate employment; (2) such 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 [his] employment.” While
we recognize that cause of a necessitous and compelling nature may exist where
an employer has instituted an unreasonable, unilateral change in the employment
agreement, mere dissatisfaction with reasonable modifications in working
conditions is not considered good cause for a voluntary quit. Kistler v. UCBR,
416 A.2d 594, 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). It is up to the claimant to establish
that the change was so unreasonable and so burdensome that a reasonable person
under like circumstances would have been compelled to quit. Unangst v. UCBR,
690 A.2d 1305, 1307-08 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
Where an
employer modifies the method by which it pays its employees, such as altering
the basis for commissions, necessitous and compelling cause for a voluntary
quit may be established. #1 Cochran, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Review, 579 A.2d 1386, 1390 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). While a significant
reduction in pay may constitute necessitous and compelling cause, Naylon v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 477 A.2d 912, 914 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1984), there is no talismanic percentage figure to denote a sufficiently substantial
reduction in pay from one that is not. Each case must be decided on its own
circumstances. Ship Inn, Inc. v. UCBR, 412 A.2d 913, 915 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1980).
In
concluding that Claimant established necessitous and compelling cause for his
voluntary quit, the Board weighed the evidence and found significance in both
the combination and relatively quick succession of events. These events included
Claimant’s reassignment to a new supervisor, Employer’s unwillingness to act on
Claimant’s formal complaint, the substantial reduction in his compensation and
presentation of the memo itemizing unachievable new goals and expectations. The
proverbial “last straw” occurred at the supervisors’ meeting with Claimant when
they refused to negotiate the unreasonable goals outlined in the memo. As the
Board determined, it was not unreasonable for Claimant to conclude that
Employer’s presentation of unattainable targets was retaliation for his recent
complaint, which resulted in no action being taken by Employer. Accordingly,
accepting Claimant’s version of the events and weighing the evidence, the Board
concluded that Employer’s substantial and unilateral changes, done in the
spirit of retaliation, constituted necessitous and compelling cause for
Claimant’s voluntary quit. We agree.
_________________________
The
opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but
not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
