Opinion
Argued December 5, 1974
May 1, 1975.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Transportation inconvenience — Burden of proof — Availability.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [625]
2. For transportation inconvenience to constitute a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for termination of employment, it must be proved by the applicant for unemployment compensation benefits that the claimed inconvenience was serious and unreasonable and presented an unsurmountable problem. [625-6]
3. Absence of transportation may render a person unavailable for suitable employment and ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [626]
Argued December 5, 1974, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 501 C.D. 1973, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Hazel D. Boob.
Application to Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Hazel D. Boob, appellant, for herself.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
This is the appeal of Hazel Boob (claimant) from an adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that she was ineligible for compensation because she voluntarily left work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. The claimant had been employed by Bro-Dart Industries, Inc. (Bro-Dart) in Williamsport, located some forty to fifty miles from her residence in Beech Creek. She states that she was forced to resign on September 29, 1972 because her car broke down and she was unable either to acquire a replacement or to obtain other reasonable public or private transportation to and from work. The Board determined that this was not a sufficient and compelling reason for voluntarily terminating her employment and benefits were denied. This appeal followed.
See Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
Under Section 402 of The Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 802:
"An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week —
"b(1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . ."
"[T]ransportation inconveniences must be serious and unreasonable to constitute good cause under the statute." Borman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 12 Pa. Commw. 241, 245, 316 A.2d 679, 681 (1974). Transportation inconvenience must present an insurmountable problem and the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Sledejowski Unemployment Compensation Case, 195 Pa. Super. 337, 171 A.2d 546 (1961); Davidson Unemployment Compensation Case, 189 Pa. Super. 543, 151 A.2d 870 (1959); Szojka Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Super. 643, 146 A.2d 81 (1958). See also, Dower Unemployment Compensation Case, 179 Pa. Super. 201, 115 A.2d 878 (1955). At oral argument the Board conceded that the claimant met this very stringent test.
Absence of transportation, however, may in itself render the claimant unavailable for suitable work under Section 401(d) of the Unemployment Compensation Law thus making her ineligible for benefits. Bledsoe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 Pa. Commw. 34, 317 A.2d 320 (1974); Zupanic Unemployment Compensation Case, 186 Pa. Super. 252, 142 A.2d 395 (1958). The Board here failed to consider that issue, however, and we must, therefore, remand the case for determination on that matter. We issue, therefore, the following
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1st day of May, 1975, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is hereby reversed and the record remanded to the Board for a determination consistent with the above opinion.