Summary
In Sabloff v Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 194 Pa. Super. 63; 166 A.2d 95 (1960), a planning official voluntarily left his employment because he was not doing the type of work for which he had been employed and because he believed his general inactivity to be a waste of government funds.
Summary of this case from Cooper v. U of MOpinion
November 15, 1960.
December 14, 1960.
Unemployment Compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Dissatisfaction of employe with type of work and with waste of time and government funds.
In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, last employed as a planning official by a redevelopment authority, was apparently dissatisfied because he was not doing the type of work for which he had been employed, was "sitting around doing nothing", and was in effect wasting government funds; and that he was not laid off or discharged; it was Held that claimant voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and that he was therefore disqualified under § 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Before RHODES, P.J., GUNTHER, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, ERVIN, WATKINS, and MONTGOMERY, JJ.
Appeal, No. 203, April T., 1960, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-57410, in re claim of Murray D. Sabloff. Decision affirmed.
Murray D. Sabloff, appellant, in propria persona, submitted a brief.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Anne X. Alpern, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued November 15, 1960.
Murray D. Sabloff was last employed as a planning official by the McKeesport Redevelopment Authority, McKeesport, Pennsylvania, at an annual salary of $7,500.00. His final day of work was December 31, 1959. His application for benefits was disallowed by the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Board of Review on the ground that he had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and that he was therefore disqualified under the provisions of Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Act of December 5, 1936, P.L. [1937] 2897, 43 P.S. 751 et seq. This appeal followed.
Our examination of this record discloses that the evidence supports the finding of the Board that appellant was not laid off or discharged. Appellant was apparently dissatisfied because he was not doing the type of work for which he had been employed, was "sitting around doing nothing", and was in effect wasting government funds. While we are not without sympathy for appellant's sense of futility, it is clear that his unemployment was entirely self-willed, and therefore not compensable. Cf. Albright Unemployment Compensation Case, 176 Pa. Super. 290, 106 A.2d 879; Welker Unemployment Compensation Case, 180 Pa. Super. 534, 119 A.2d 658.
Decision affirmed.