Spivey v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – July 6, 2020 – reported opinion
Claimant held to have voluntarily quit his job when
- On parole, he failed a drug test – alcohol, cocaine, marijuana
- As a result, he was held in detox
- After detox, he entered into an in-patient substance abuse treatment program from 12-11-18 to 1-25-19
- Contacted ER upon release – informed no work for him
From the opinion:
Voluntary quit – burden of proof - Section 402(b) of the Law states that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week “[i]n which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature[.]” 43 P.S. § 802(b). Aclaimant seeking benefits bears the burden of establishing either that (1) his separation from employment was involuntary or (2) his separation was voluntary but he had cause of a necessitous or compelling nature that led him to discontinue the relationship. Greenray Indus. v. UCBR, 135 A.3d 1140, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (quoting Watkins v. UCBR, 65 A.3d 999, 1004 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)).
Express resignation not required - When examining whether a claimant has ‘voluntarily’ left employment, an express resignation is not necessary to make this determination and ‘conduct which is tantamount to a voluntary termination of employment is sufficient.’ Greenray Indus[.] . . . , 135 A.3d [at] 1143 . . . ([quoting] Shrum v. UCBR, 690 A.2d 796, 799-800 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997)).
Totality of circumstances - When making a determination of whether a person voluntarily left his employment, we must examine the totality of the facts surrounding the cessation of employment. An employee’s failure to take all necessary and reasonable steps to preserve his employment will result in a voluntary termination of employment. Thiessen v. UCBR, 178 A.3d 255, 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (emphasis added; citations omitted).
Leaving w/o action by employer is a voluntary quit - The courts have defined ‘voluntary’ as leaving on one’s own motion, stating: ‘Where the employee, without action by the employer, resigns, leaves or quits his employment, his action amounts to ‘voluntarily leaving work. . . .’’ Labor [&] Industry Dep[’t] v. UCBR, . . . 3 A.2d 211[, 214] ([Pa. Super.] 1938). Roberts v. UCBR, 432 A.2d 646, 648 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Claimant left w/o any action by his employer, under the undisputed facts found by the UCBR.
Sec. 3 – “through no fault of his own” - Having determined that Claimant voluntarily left his employment, this Court must now rule on whether Claimant is eligible for UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. Pursuant to Section 3 of the Law, the purpose of the Law is to provide UC benefits for “persons unemployed through no fault of their own.” 43 P.S. § 752 (emphasis added). Although the UCBR did not rely on Section 3 of the Law in reaching its decision in this case, this Court has determined that it is a valid interpretive aid when analyzing Section 402(b) of the Law. See Kawa v. UCBR, 573 A.2d 252 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990); see also Bostic v. UCBR (Pa. Cmwlth. No. 1531 C.D. 2009, filed February 16, 2010).
No express quit, but -- "In determining fault, this Court has historically and consistently concluded that an employee is responsible for the consequences of his alcohol and drug use. Here, claimant’s own testimony was substantial evidence for UCBR finding that his absence from work due to in-patient drug program was the result of claimant’s alcohol and drug use. “Therefore, although Claimant did not expressly quit his job, his conscious disregard to consume alcohol and drugs despite being fully aware of the potential consequences was sufficient for the UCBR to conclude that he was voluntarily unemployed without a necessitous and compelling reason.”
