Opinion
Argued April 2, 1979
June 7, 1979.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntary termination — Cause of a necessitous and compelling nature — Burden of proof — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Conflicting evidence — Incompetence.
1. An employe voluntarily terminating employment is ineligible for benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897, unless she proves that such termination was for a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. [277]
2. In an unemployment compensation case the resolution of conflicts in the evidence is for the factfinder, and findings supported by substantial evidence are binding upon a reviewing court, although competent evidence to the contrary was also produced. [277-8]
3. Fear of lack of competence to handle a position and resulting emotional upset are not necessitous and compelling causes for terminating employment without attempting to perform the job proffered and such employe is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits. [278]
Argued April 2, 1979, before Judges CRUMLISH, JR., MENCER and ROGERS, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1263 C.D. 1978, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Asuncion Santiago, No. B-156124.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Margarita Navarro, for appellant.
Reese Couch, Assistant Attorney General, with him William G. Dade, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Justin Blewitt, Acting Attorney General, for appellee.
Asuncion Santiago appeals a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirming a referee's denial of benefits. We are asked to review the record for substantial evidence supporting Board findings, and to examine the legal conclusion that Santiago voluntarily terminated employment without necessitous and compelling reasons. We affirm.
Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1).
The findings indicate that Santiago was last employed by Gimbels on November 4, 1977, as a checking and receiving clerk. Her position was eliminated and employer offered her work in accounts payable as a vendor adjuster at the same rate of pay and with no change in hours. Santiago rejected the offer because she felt it was beyond her ability and would be emotionally upsetting. Employer had determined that she was qualified and would provide any necessary training.
A careful reading of the record reveals adequate support of these findings. The former employee argues she was never offered a new position, yet her admissions indicate she was offered a job in accounts payable and the only position available was vendor adjuster. Moreover, the record supports the finding that Claimant actually rejected the position. Santiago contests this finding but employer's testimony lends adequate support. Conflicts in testimony are resolved below and findings adequately supported are binding. Roach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 31 Pa. Commw. 424, 376 A.2d 314 (1977). Substantial evidence in the form of employer testimony likewise supports the finding that employer determined that Claimant was capable and that employer would provide training.
These findings in turn support the conclusion of a non-necessitous voluntary termination in the nature of a refusal to accept suitable employment. Claimant's former position involved receiving and marking orders, while her new position included making adjustments to these orders after communicating with the vendors. Employer offered training and indicated that its confidence in the employee was a result of her excellent past performance. Employee made no attempt to see if the job would work out. The employer has fulfilled its obligation to offer suitable employment as provided by Section 4(t) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Section 4 (t) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P. S. § 753 (t).
Santiago offers incompetence, lack of proficiency in the English language and emotional upset as justification for her refusal to accept the position. We reiterate that the burden is on Claimant to prove necessary cause for voluntary termination. Pfafman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 7 Pa. Commw. 197, 300 A.2d 295 (1973). We hold that Claimant's subjective perception of inadequacy without an attempt to perform the duties, especially in light of her excellent work history, falls short of a necessary reason to terminate employment.
Accordingly, we
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of June, 1979, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-156124 denying benefits to Asuncion Santiago is affirmed.