From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hesse v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 18, 1980
422 A.2d 729 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)

Opinion

Argued September 8, 1980

November 18, 1980.

Unemployment compensation — Burden of proof — Necessary and compelling reason — Working conditions.

1. In an unemployment compensation case, the burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving employment rests with the claimant. [596]

2. In an unemployment compensation case, mere dissatisfaction with working conditions is not a necessitous cause to justify a voluntary quit; to prove eligibility for benefits, a claimant must establish that he was deceived as to or unaware of the fact that he would be required to perform jobs of a lesser caliber before being assigned to the mechanic's work he desired. [596]

Argued September 8, 1980, before President Judge CRUMLISH and Judges MacPHAIL and WILLIAMS, JR., sitting as a panel of three.

Appeal, No. 430 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of Kenneth P. Hesse, No. B-153459.

Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.

Ky Van Nguyen, for petitioner.

Steven Marcuse, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Harvey Bartle, III, Acting Attorney General, for respondent.


The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the referee's denial of unemployment compensation benefits to Kenneth P. Hesse based on Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law finding that Hesse had voluntarily terminated his employment without a necessitous and compelling reason. We affirm.

Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).

Hesse was last employed as a mechanic's trainee through an 18-month Manpower program. After five months, he quit because of dissatisfaction with his work assignments.

The law is clear. The burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for leaving employment rests with the claimant. DeNofa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa. Commw. 97, 413 A.2d 786 (1980). Mere dissatisfaction with working conditions is not a necessitous cause to justify a voluntary quit. Id. Therefore, to prove eligibility for benefits, Hesse must establish that he was deceived as to or unaware of the fact that he would be required to perform jobs of a lesser caliber before being assigned mechanic's work. Mosley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 15 Pa. Commw. 447, 327 A.2d 199 (1974).

The record discloses that Hesse was treated the same as others in the program, that the employer told Hesse when he entered into employment that he would start at the bottom and work his way up, and that Hesse had in fact done some minor mechanical work. Under the circumstances, Hesse has not met his burden of proving any necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily terminating his employment.

Affirmed.

ORDER

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review order at B-153459, dated February 10, 1978, denying unemployment compensation benefits to Kenneth P. Hesse is affirmed.


Summaries of

Hesse v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Nov 18, 1980
422 A.2d 729 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
Case details for

Hesse v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

Case Details

Full title:Kenneth P. Hesse, Petitioner v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Unemployment…

Court:Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Nov 18, 1980

Citations

422 A.2d 729 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. 1980)
422 A.2d 729

Citing Cases

Yazevac v. Unempl. Comp. Bd. of Review

The decision of the compensation authorities to accept Employer's assessment that conditions at All American…

Warner v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Mere discontent with one's wages, hours and working conditions has never been held to be adequate…