IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William E. Bonney, : : No. 1228 C.D. 2016 Petitioner : Submitted: November 4, 2016

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, :

: Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE WOJCIK FILED: April 7, 2017

William E. Bonney (Claimant) petitions pro se for review o f the July

5, 2016 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that

affirmed a referee’s determination that Claimant is ineligible for unemployment

compensation benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation

Law (Law). 1 We affirm.

Claimant was employed by D&W Fine Pack (Employer) beginning in

September 2015. At the time of his separation from employment , Claimant was

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). Section 402(b) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any
week in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.2

working as a full

- time department supervisor earning $66,000.00 per year. On

April 11, 2016, Claimant resigned from his employment, effective immediately.

Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1

- 3.

Claimant filed for unemployment benefits on April 12, 2016, citing

transportation problems as the reason for the separation. The local service center

determined that Claimant was eligible for benefits. Employer timely appealed this

determination

, asserting that Claimant had not provided any reason for his

resignation, either verbally or in his resignation letter. Employer stated that

Claimant never notified anyone th at he was having transportation issues.

A referee held a hearing on May 31, 2016. Celine Severino,

Employer’s human resources manager, was present and Claimant participated by

telephone. Claimant testified th at the primary reason he quit was that he did not

have any means of transportation . He also cited personnel issues and personality

issues as reasons that motivated him to separate from Employer. Claimant

admitted that he did not reveal any of these issues to Employer, even when

pressed. Claimant also did not cite personnel or personality issues in his

application for unemployment benefits. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), May 31, 2016,

at 4

- 9.

Servino confir med Claimant’s testimony that he had declined to give

specifics as to the reason for his resignation and that his resignation was

immediately accepted. She also testified that, other than on one occasion the

previous year, Claimant had never informed Empl oyer regarding any

transportation issues. N.T. at 9

- 10.

The referee found that Claimant gave Employe r no reason for his

resignation and that he never complained to Employer’s human resources3

department regarding workplace issues or that he was considerin g resigning. The

referee found that prior to actually resigning, Claimant never told anyone at his

workplace that he was thinking of resigning. Even when pressed at the time of his

resignation, Claimant refused to provide any details or any reason as to why he was

resigning. F.F. Nos. 4

- 7. The referee concluded that Claimant was ineligible for

benefits under Section 402(b) because he had voluntarily quit his employment

without necessitous and compelling cause

. 2

Claimant appealed to the Board, challengi ng the referee’s findings and

again asserting personnel and transportation issues as the reason for his

resignation

. The Board affirmed the referee’s decision, adopting and incorporating

the referee’s findings and conclusions.

On appeal to this Court, 3 C laimant argues that the Board erred in

finding him inel igible for benefits . He assert s that he had good cause to quit as the

result of stress, fatigue, and ongoing transportation issues.

2 The referee also noted that Claimant’s refusal to provide any specific reason as to why he was resigning constitu ted refusal of a reasonable business directive which would have made Claimant ineligible under Section 402(e) of the Law as well. Under Section 402(e) , a claimant is ineligible for benefits when “ his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspe nsion
from work for willful misconduct connected with his work .” 43 P.S. § 802(e )

.

3 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841, 843

- 44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). The Board is the factfinder in unemployment compensation cases, empowered to determin e credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicts in
evidence. Curr

an v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 752 A.2d 938, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). The Board’s findings are binding on appeal if they are supported by substantial

evidence. Mathis v. Une mployment Compensation Board of Review , 64 A.3d 292, 299 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2013 ). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review, 738 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). We view the record in the light most favorable (Footnote continued on next page...)4 Under Section 402(b) of the Law, a claimant is ineligible for

unempl oyment benefits if he voluntarily terminates employment without cause of a

necessitous and compelling nature. Procito v. Unemployment Compensation

Board of Review , 945 A.2d 261, 262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The burden of proof is

on the claimant to prove a ne cessitous and compelling cause

, and whether such

cause exists is a question of law subject to review by this Court. Id. at 266. T o
demonstrate necessitous and compelling cause , a claimant must establish that : (1)

circumstances existed which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate

employment; (2) similar circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in

the same manner; (3) the claimant acted with ordinary common sense; and (4) the

claimant made a reasonab le effort to preserve his employment. Brown v.

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 780 A.2d 885, 888 (Pa. Cmwlth.

2001).

Here, the Board denied Claimant benefits because it found that

Claimant did not make a reasonable effort to preserve his employment. In

particular, Cl aimant repeatedly refused to provide a specific reason for his

resignation, thus denying Employer the opportunity to remedy the situation.

It is well settled that when an employee fails to take all necessary and

reasonable steps to preserve his employment , he fails to meet his burden to show

necessitous and compelling cause. See Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center,

LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa.

(continued...)

to the party prevailing before the Board and afford that party the benefit of all reasonable
inferences that can be drawn from the evidence to determine if substantial evidenc e exists. Big Mountain Imaging v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 48 A.3d 492, 494

– 95 (Pa.

C mwlth. 2012).5

Cmwlth. 2006); PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of

Review, 682 A.2d 58, 61 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996); Westwood v. Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review , 532 A.2d 1281, 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). 4

In a case very similar to this, Porco v. Unemployment Compensation

Board of Review , 828 A.2d 426, 429

- 30 (Pa. Cmwlt h. 2003), we held that if a

claimant denies his employer the opportunity to resolve employment issues, he has

failed to take reasonable steps to preserve employment. In that case, the claimant

quit his job due to his manager’s abusive conduct and profanit y. The claimant,

however, fa iled to speak to any upper level management regarding his manager’s

behavior before quitting. By providing his employer no opportunity to resolve the

situation, the claimant failed to take reasonable steps to preserve his empl oyment.

Thus, we affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits under Section 402(b).

After careful review of the record, we conclude the Board’s findings

are supported by substantial evidence. These findings support the Board’s

conclusion that because Claiman t refused to provide Employer a reason for his

resignation, he failed to demonstrate a n ecessitous and compelling cause for

voluntarily quitting his employment.

Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.

MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

4 Moreover, m ere dissatisfaction with working conditions or a mere personality conflict

, absent an intole rable work environment, does not c onstitute necessitous and compelling reasons for a voluntary quit. Magazzeni v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 462 A.2d 961

, 962 ( Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William E. Bonney, : : No. 1228 C.D. 2016 Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, :

: Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 7 th day of April , 2017

, the order of the

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated July 5, 2016, is

AFFIRMED.

__________________________________ MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge