Opinion
March 15, 1983.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of necessitous and compelling nature — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review — Inconsistent findings — Capricious disregard of competent evidence — Inadequate findings — Presumption of suitability.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment has the burden of proving that such action was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [588]
2. In an unemployment compensation case where the party with the burden of proof did not prevail below, review by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is to determine whether findings of fact were consistent with each other and the conclusions of law can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. [588]
3. An unemployment compensation case must be remanded when unemployment compensation authorities erroneously considered that the presumption of suitability of employment arising when an employe accepts employment was irrebuttable and failed to make findings as to whether such presumption was rebutted and whether a necessitous and compelling cause existed for the voluntary termination of the employe. [589]
Submitted on briefs November 17, 1982, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges MacPHAIL and DOYLE, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 790 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In re: Claim of William Credden, No. B-193205.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed and remanded.
Thomas J. Feerick, Rambo and Mair, for petitioner.
James K. Bradley, Associate Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, by order, affirmed a referee's denial of benefits to William Credden. We reverse and remand.
Credden was employed by Marriot Corporation as an equipment mechanic for approximately thirteen years and, for the greater part of that period, worked at several of Marriot's Pennsylvania restaurants. When Marriot terminated its restaurant operations in Pennsylvania, it offered Credden a similar position at its New Jersey Turnpike restaurants. Credden accepted the new position and remained in Marriot's employ until he quit eleven months later because, in his view, the distance he was required to drive each day was intolerable.
The Board denied Credden's application for benefits, concluding that Credden's quit was voluntary and, thus, not due to "cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" as required by Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b).
A claimant who voluntarily terminates his employment bears the burden of proving that his decision was motivated by compelling and necessitous reasons in order to be eligibile for unemployment compensation benefits. Stiffler v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commw. 44, 438 A.2d 1058 (1982). Where, as here, the party with the burden of proof did not prevail below, our scope of review is to determine whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the Board's conclusions of law and whether its findings can be sustained without a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Local 730, United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of Plumbing and Pipe-Fitting Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 63 Pa. Commw. 195, 427 A.2d 1055 (1981).
We find that we cannot exercise our review function because of the inadequacy of the Board's factual and legal conclusions. Before the Board, Credden argued that he had established the adverse effects the driving was having on his family life and health, and that the adverse effects constituted cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for his quit. The Board, however, disregarded his argument for the reason that Credden, through his initial acceptance of the position, had created a presumption of the position's suitability. Without further discussion, it concluded that Credden had not demonstrated a necessitous and compelling cause for his quit. In so doing, it in effect created an irrebuttable presumption of the position's suitability, and thereby committed an error of law. The presumption of suitability is rebuttable. See Stiffler; Spinelli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 63 Pa. Commw. 358, 437 A.2d 1320 (1981).
Therefore, the Board must determine whether Credden proved the existence of the alleged adverse effects and decide whether the presumption of job suitability was rebutted and a necessitous and compelling reason for the quit established.
Reversed and remanded.
ORDER
The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in Appeal No. B-80-1-0-1173 is hereby reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Opinion. This Court relinquishes jurisdiction.