Summary
In Electrical Reactance Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 169 Pa.Super. 269, 82 A.2d 277, two clerical employees left work after "objectionable conditions had existed for a long period of time" and their supervisor finally "became abusive * * * arguing, cursing and swearing.
Summary of this case from Citizens Bank of Sh. v. Ind. Com'nOpinion
March 6, 1951.
July 19, 1951.
Unemployment compensation — Voluntarily leaving work — Good cause — Findings of fact — Appellate review.
1. To constitute good cause, an employe's leaving his employment must be for adequate excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds for action, and always the element of good faith.
2. Findings of fact by the unemployment compensation authorities, supported by sufficient and competent testimony, were binding on appeal.
3. In unemployment compensation cases, in which it appeared that claimants were subjected by their supervisor to unjust accusations, abusive conduct and profane language; and that they left their work but attempted to resume four days after leaving on the strength of the employer's promise to settle the matter; it was Held that there was sufficient and competent evidence to sustain findings of the unemployment authorities that claimants had not voluntarily left their work without good cause.
Before RHODES, P.J., HIRT, RENO, DITHRICH, ROSS, ARNOLD and GUNTHER, JJ.
Appeals, Nos. 12 and 13, Feb. T., 1951, by employer, Electrical Reactance Corporation, from decisions of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated April 3, 1950, Nos. B-20725 and B-20675, in re claims of Eleanor E. Trinovitch and Jane Paczkowski. Decisions affirmed.
James E. O'Brien, with him Nogi, O'Malley Harris and Henry Nogi, for employer, appellant.
William L. Hammond, Special Deputy Attorney General, with him Richard H. Wagner, Associate Counsel and Charles J. Margiotti, Attorney General, for appellee.
Ralph P. Needle, with him Needle, Needle Needle, for claimant-interveners, appellees.
Argued March 6, 1951.
In these two cases the employer appeals from awards of compensation. Appellant contends that claimants' unemployment was "due to voluntarily leaving work without good cause," and that under § 402 (b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law as amended, 43 P. S. § 802, they thus became ineligible for relief.
The claimants, who were the principal employes in appellant's payroll department, left their employment on October 10, 1949, after a dispute with their supervisor. The supervisor was heard to complain unjustly that her health had been affected through her having had to perform the work of the payroll employes, and upon being asked for an explanation "became abusive . . . arguing, cursing and swearing." (Finding No. 2). These employes then left their work; and after advising the president of the situation, were asked by him to return to work until the matter could be settled. Thereupon, they reported to work on October 14, 1949, but were advised by the superintendent that others had been placed in their positions and that "there was no work for them." (Finding No. 3). The board found as a fact that they did not intend to abandon their employment when they left; that there existed a condition to which they had the right to object; that they "acted reasonably"; and that they neither voluntarily left their work without good cause nor were they discharged for willful misconduct. The evidence further established that objectionable conditions had existed for a long period of time, and that the last occurrence was merely a culmination of conduct that made it impossible for them to continue their employment.
The findings of fact were supported by sufficient and competent testimony, and are therefore binding upon this Court.
To constitute good cause, the employes' leaving must be for "adequate excuses that will bear the test of reason, just grounds for action, and always the element of good faith.": Sturdevant Unemployment Case, 158 Pa. Super. 548, 45 A.2d 898. See also Kaylock Unemployment Compensation Case, 165 Pa. Super. 376, 67 A.2d 801. The circumstances here meet these tests. These claimants were not required to continue being subjected to unjust accusations, abusive conduct and profane language. That they acted in good faith is borne out by their attempt to resume work four days after leaving, on the strength of the company's promise to settle the matter. There is nothing in the evidence which can be said to point to their "voluntarily leaving without good cause." There was ample evidence of "good cause," which the board chose to believe as true.
Decisions affirmed.