IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary C. Joseph

, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review

, : No. 137 6 C.D. 201 5 Respondent : Submitted : July 8

, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Ju dge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY , Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER , Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: October 20, 2016

Mary C. Joseph (Claimant) petitions this Court, pro se

, for review of the

Unemp loyment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) June 24, 2 01 5 order

affirming the Referee’s decision denying Claimant UC benefits un d er Section 402(b)

of the UC Law (Law). 1 The sole issue before this Court is whether Claimant had a

necessitous and comp elling reason for leaving her employment . After review, we

affirm.

C laimant was employed as a part

- time service representative with Blair

, LLC (Employer) , working an average of 26 hours a week from June 16, 2014 through

January 15, 2015. Claimant ’s comm ute to work was approximately one hour. O n
January 12, 2015 , C laimant was scheduled for training on Employer’s new computer

system. Although C laimant ’s supervisor made her aware that training was required

,

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended , 43 P.S. § 802(b) (relating to voluntary separation without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature).2

Claimant did not attend

. C laimant ’s training wa s rescheduled , but she again failed to

report. Under Employer’s new computer system, Employer ’ s guideline for an

average service representative call was reduced to seven minutes. C laimant thought

it would be difficult to have a seven

- minute order with el derly customers and there

was no way she could do it. When C laimant finally attended her training session

, she

was observed using Employer’s old system to take her calls. When t he trainer

reminded Claimant to use the new system

, Claimant said she was lea ving

. Claimant

left and did not return to work thereafter. E mployer had continuing work available

for C laimant.

Claimant applied for UC benefits. On February 24, 2015, the Duquesne

UC Service Center found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits under Sec tion 402(b) of

the Law. Claimant appealed and a Referee hearing was held. On April 13, 2015, the

Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s determination. Claimant appealed to the

U C BR. On June 24, 2015, the UCBR adopted and incorporated the Referee’s fa ctual

findings and legal conclusions, and affirmed the Referee’s decision . Claimant

appealed to this Court. 2

Claimant argues that her one

- hour commute

, unstable work schedule

,

numerous tardiness warnings and Employer’s new computer system were necessito us
and compelling reasons to quit her employment. We disagree. This Court has

explained:

Whether a claimant had cause of a necessitous and

compelling nature for leaving work is a questi on of law subject to this Court’ s review. A claimant who voluntari ly quits his employment bears the burden of proving that

2 “Our scope o f review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704. ” Turgeon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 64 A.3d 729, 731 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).3 necessitous and compelling reasons motivated that decision. In order to establish cause of a necessitous and compelling

nature , a claimant must establish that (1) circumstances existed that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment, (2) like 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 reasonable effort to preserve her empl oyment.

Middletown Twp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 40 A.3d 217, 22 7

- 28 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2012) (citations omitted).

Here, when asked by the Referee “why she is no longer employed by

[Employer],” Claimant responded:

The job is not as what was anticipa ted . When I went there, you know, I thought I could utilize the job; go there

an d work, come home and that would be fine but it just

– a lot of stuff went wrong as far as they were working on the highway. Sandy [ Claimant’s supervisor ] does know this [.] I talked to her about it a lot because they would back up the traffic and they didn’t

– I’d ask them how much longer before I can, you know, get on my way; I have to punch a time clock or I’m going to lose my job. Well they could not
tell me. The traffic was backed up from June to
December and nobody knew when they were going to be done with that so it caused me to be late a lot and I knew the rules that if you’re tardy enough times eventually it goes to a [ n employment ] termination . So I did my best to

g et there. I have things to do here in Bradford before I go so it’s not like I could leave at 8:00 when my shift starts at
10:00. This is one part that I

– that caused me to get a lot of warnings for tardiness . Then when I would go on break

– the clock o n the computer was not the same as the clock computer [sic] in the lunch room so I could not tell

– I only had 10 minute breaks. I could not tell

– it took me a while to get there to go on a break and then the computer

– the time clock was wrong so I coul d not

– I didn’t even

-- I was late a lot and I

– you can’t have you[r] cell phone so I couldn’t use th at which would have been the most accurate one and the parking

– walking from the parking [lot] was a long distance which was not bad but when I was late being in a car jam I had to hurry getting to the

– to my desk and4 it’s a long distance. So that all was all in [sic] just jeopardizes [sic] the tardiness [inaudible]. I kept getting warnings . Then I mentioned this to a supervisor and they did tell me I could put my timer on on [sic] the telephone and I tried that but it still didn’t work because I had the timer on the other phone; I don’t even think there was one so that wouldn’t work. [sic] So that was

– it’s a very unreasonable distance to work with one hour getting there and coming back and having my hours decreased to 20 hours . So that was a very unreasonable distance with the hours I worked. So that was my other

– so I just

– I said to myself I need to go home and I need to

-- I did start lookin g for a job and it just

– I just kept

– they started a

new program ; they were training me on it and, you know, as [inaudible] do it and it just

– everything like I just said to myself I don’t know if 20 hours a week doing this

– they told me they only want ed me

– they wanted orders taken in seven minutes. You can’t take an order in seven minutes when you talk to the elderly because they had [sic] a hard time hearing you. There’s no way, you know. So I just had told them I need to go home and I need to fi gure out what I’m going to do from here because this just isn’ t

w orking for me . That’s what I said. I just walked out [inaudible] and I said that I was going to go home and decide now what I was going to do about

– as far as getting another job. That’s pretty much everything

. That’s why I said the job was not the same as what it was anticipated . [sic] That was my [inaudible] and then the unreaso nabl e distance to work with the hours I was working. An increase and [ sic] work related travel expense which I have a lot of that too now.
Notes of Testimony April 3, 2015 at 7

- 8 (emphasis added).

Pennsylvania law is clear that “ [m] ere dissatisfaction with one’ s working

conditions does not constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for

terminat ing one ’ s employment. ” Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr

. , LLC v.

Unemployment Comp

. Bd. of Review

, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

“ Further, the fact that a job is not guaranteed does not amount to cause of a

necessitous and compelling nature to ju stify a quit. ” Nolan v. Unemployment Comp.

Bd. of Review, 797 A.2d 1042, 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). Moreover

, “ multiple5

causes, none compelling or necessitous, do not in combination become one qualifying

cause. ” Hostovich v. Unemployment Comp

. Bd. of Revi ew , 414 A.2d 733, 735 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 1980). Accordingly, Claimant’s dissatisfaction with her commute and

Employer’s new computer system a s well as her concern about being fired due to

tardiness are not necessitous and compelling reasons for leaving her empl oyment

such that she would be entitled to UC benefits

.

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, JudgeIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Mary C. Joseph, : Petition er :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : No. 137 6 C.D. 2015 Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 20 th day of October , 201 6

, the Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review’s June 24, 2 01 5 order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge