Life
Pittsburgh v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – November 20, 2015 – unpublished memorandum
opinion
Certified
Nursing Assistant (CNA) had good cause to quit her job after a series of
incidents at work that caused her to have a reasonable fear for her health and
safety.
Factual
matrix at time of separation
cannot be arbitrarily restricted – The factual matrix at the time of
separation determines whether claimant had good cause to quit. in this
case, that included not only the last incident but several in the month
prior to claimant’s voluntary quit, all of which she had addressed with the
employer. Cf., Hussey Copper Ltd. v. UCBR, 718 A.2d 894 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1998). The events leading to claimant’s resignation took
place over a relatively short period of time, and claimant did seek to remedy
the problems through available channels. Cf., Umedman v. UCBR, 52 A.3d
558, 564 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
The last incident was not by itself the
precipitating event for her resignation, but the culmination of a pattern of
events that produced real and substantial pressure upon Claimant and which
Employer failed to address. Collier Stone Co. v. UCBR, 876 A.2d 481, 485
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2005). The claimant need not notify the employer of each and
every
incident so long as a claimant has given the employer the opportunity to
understand the problem and take steps to resolve it. Moreover, the
Board’s consideration of recent events, not just the last one, goes directly to
the claimant’s burden to demonstrate that she made a reasonable effort to maintain
employment by advising Employer of the conditions of her employment putting her
at risk, that she provided Employer with the opportunity to resolve the
problems, and that Employer failed to do so.
The purpose of the rule that the Board restrict itself to the
“factual matrix at the time of separation,” is to prohibit both parties from
introducing into the Board’s inquiry events, facts or issues from the entirety
of the employment relationship regardless of how irrelevant or removed from the
time of separation. Hussey, 718 A.2d at 900; Lehigh County Community
College v. UCBR, 473 A.2d 727, 729-730 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984). Under
Employer’s interpretation of the rule, which would focus only on the events
immediately preceding termination from employment, claimants and employers
would be severely inhibited in their ability to satisfy or rebut their
respective evidentiary burdens by an arbitrarily restrictive temporal window.
Employer’s interpretation would also bar claimants from receiving unemployment
compensation who have a necessitous and compelling cause to leave employment
based upon a pattern of harassment. [citations omitted]
Substantial evidence supported Board’s findings that claimant
had good cause to quit
The
facts found by the Board show that claimant was threatened, attempted to seek
assistance from employer to address the threats, and that employer failed to
provide adequate assistance or support to Claimant. Each fact is supported
by substantial evidence in the form of claimant’s credible testimony, which was
unrebutted by the employer.
Claimant’s belief that her working conditions were unsafe was
not speculative. Compare Green Tree School, 982 A.2d at 578 (subjective
fear that autistic students may become unruly with a reduced behavioral management
staff was insufficient to establish real, objective safety fears); Hoy,
391 A.2d at 1145 (claimants’ concern for their safety was real and substantial
where employer failed to institute adequate safety measures at convenience
store following string of robbery-homicides at similar businesses in the area);
Rapid Pallet v. UCBR, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (faulty
condition of employer’s truck constituted safety concerns that created real and
substantial pressure to resign from employment). The Board did not err in
concluding that Claimant satisfied her burden to demonstrate cause of a
necessitous and compelling nature to voluntarily resign her employment.
-------------------
An unreported
case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive
value. . . .” See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and
Pa. R.A.P. 3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]
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)
