IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Melissa Royer, : : No. 2598 C.D. 2015 Petitioner : Submitted: May 6, 2016

: v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: July 8, 2016

Melissa Royer (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se , of the October 16, 2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming
the de cision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. The UCBR determined that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under

sec tion 402(b) of the Unemployment Compens ation Law (Law) 1 because she voluntarily quit her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling
nature. We affirm.

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (19 37) 2897, as amended , 43 P.S. § 802(b)

. Section 402(b) of the Law provides that “[ a ] n employe shall be ineligibl e for compensation for any week . . . [i]n which [her] unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.” 43 P.S. § 8 02(b)

.2

Claimant worked as a staff nurse for Children’s Hospital of UPMC (Employer) from October 29, 2012, through March 18, 2015. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, No. 1.) On March 18, 2015, Employer met with Claimant to discuss concerns that Claimant had. ( Id. , No. 2 .) The meeting did not progress very far because Claimant became tearful and left the meeting. ( Id. ) Claimant did not return to work after March 18, 2015, and did not discuss any of her concerns with Employer. ( Id. , No. 3.)

Claimant resigned via emai l on March 20, 2015, stating no reason for her resignation. ( Id. , No. 4.) Before resigning, Claimant never informed her direct supervisor that she felt micromanaged, bullied, threatened, harassed , or subjected to a
hostile work environment. ( Id. , No. 5. ) Claimant also did not file any com p laints
with the human resour c es department before she resigned. ( Id. , No. 6.) Claimant was eligible for a transfer if she desired but never inquired about a transfer. ( Id. , No. 7.) Had Claimant chose n to remain employed, contin uing work would have been
avail a b le to her. ( Id. , No. 8.)

Claimant filed a claim for UC ben e fits, which the local service center
denied under section 402(b) of the Law . Claimant appealed to the referee, who
scheduled a hearin g for June 29, 2015. Claimant did not appear at the hearing. 2 Thus, the referee concluded that Claimant failed to meet her burden of proving that she had a necessitous and compe lling reason to quit her employ ment and affirmed the
denial of UC benefits

. (Ref.’s Op. at 2.)

2 Before the June 29, 2015, hearing, Claimant requested that the referee conduct the hearing via telephone because it would be burdensome for Claimant to travel to Pittsburgh to attend the hearing. The referee denied Claimant’s request.3

Claimant appe a led to the UCBR, which remanded the matter to the
referee for a telephone hearing. The referee held telephone hearings on August 24, 2015, and September 10, 2015 , at which both Claimant and Employer testified

.

Following remand, the UCBR affirmed the referee’s de nial of benefits

. The UCBR discredited Claimant’s testimony that she was bullied, harassed, and threatened at work, noting that “[s]ome of the issues alleged by the claimant occurred years before her resignation” and “[o]ther issues were so minor that they would not cause a reasonable person to resign.” (UCBR’s Op. at 2.) The UCBR also credited the testimony of Employer’s witness that Employer was unaware of Claimant’s concerns before she resigned. ( Id. ) There fore, the UCBR conclud ed that Claimant failed to prove that she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit her employment and that she made a reasonable effort to resolve her concerns with Employer before resigning

. ( Id. at 3.) Claimant request ed reconsideration, which the UCBR denied on November 10, 2015. Claimant now petitions this court for review. 3

On appeal, Claimant asserts that the UCBR erred in concluding that she is ineligible for UC benefits under section 402(b) of the Law

. Specifical ly, Claimant
contends that the evidence established that she had a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily quit

. We disagree.

3 This cou rt’s review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether the adjudication is in accordance with the law, and whether the necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.4

A claimant who seek s UC benefits after voluntarily terminating his or
her employment has the burden of proving cause o f a necessitous and compelling

nature. Wert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 41 A.3d 937, 940 (Pa. Cmwlth. 20 12 ). To establish necessitous and compelling cause , the claimant

“ must prove that: (1) circumstances existed that produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) such 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 his or her

emp loyment. ” Id. A claimant who voluntarily quits due to a perceived hostile work environment can prove that she made a reasonable effort to preserve her employment by showing that she first notified her superiors of the harassing or abusive conduct.
See P orco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 828 A.2d 426, 428 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2003). However, “[p] ersonality conflicts, absent an intolerable work atmosphere , do not amount to a n ecessitous and c ompelling ” reason to voluntarily quit

. Wert , 41 A.3d at 940.

Here, Claimant testified at length about the issues that allegedly cause d
her to feel bullied, harassed , and threatened at work, including being asked to cover another nurse’s shifts, being asked to call patients while working from home, and being asked to share her computer password with a co

- worker. ( N.T., 8/24/15, at 8 , 21

- 22 , 27

- 33 ; N.T. , 9/10/15, at 7

- 8, 18. ) She also testified that Employer micromanaged her , sent her hostile emails, and blamed her for issues beyond her

contro l , such as errors with scheduling patient appointments and obtaining prior
authorizations for t reatments

. ( N.T., 9/10/15, at 4

- 8 , 1 2 , 27

- 29 , 40

- 41

. ) Claimant
further testified that she left the March 18, 2015, meeting because she “was led to believe that the meeting was going to be a fair discussion of how we can better5

improve communication” but instead “turned out to be [about] everything [she] was doing wrong.” ( N.T., 8/24/1 5, at 9. )

It is well settled that “mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or resentment of a superior’s criticisms, absent a finding of unjust accusation s , abusive conduct or profane language, does not amount to the necessary good cause for quitt ing.” Magazzeni v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 462 A.2d 961, 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); see Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 995 A.2d 1286, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010 )

. As the UCBR found, many of Claimant’s issues relate d to incidents that occurred two years before her resignation and would not have compelled a reasonable person in her

s ituation to resign . (UCBR’s Op. at 2.) Th erefore , t he UCBR correctly conclud ed
that C laimant’s perception of a hostile work environment w as un supported by the
credible evidence of record.

Claimant also repeatedly asserts that Marilyn Cieri, Employer’s senior practice manager and Claimant’s direct su pervisor, provided false testimony. (Cl.’s
Br. at 17

- 21, 23, 25, 29.) Cieri testified that she scheduled the March 18, 20 1 5, meeting to discuss communication issues with Claimant , but Claimant left the meeting before discussing any of her concerns . (N.T. , 9/1 0/15, at 50.) Cieri also
testified that Claimant never informed h er that she felt harassed, threatened, or bullied in the workplace . ( Id. at 51

- 52.) T he UCBR, as the ultimate factfinder , “ is free to accept or reject the testimony of any witness in whole or in part. ” McFadden v. Unemployment Comp ensation B oard of Revi ew , 806 A.2d 955, 958 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The UCBR ’ s findings are conclusive on appeal as long as the record contains substantial evidence to support its findings

. Spiropo u los v. Unemployment6

Compensation Board of Review , 654 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Here, t he
UC BR resolved the conflicts in the testimony in favor of Employer and against
Claimant

. W e conclude that the UCBR ’ s factual findings are supported by
substantial evidence.

Furthermore , Claimant failed to establish that she made a reaso nable effort to preserve her employment before voluntarily quitting

. Claimant asserts that
she inform ed Employer that she was bullied, harassed, and micromanaged in numerous emails, which she introduced into evidence at the hearings. However, the

texts o f the e mails merely show that Employer was aware of Claimant’s con c erns regarding miscommun ication about her job responsibilities and departmental procedures

. ( See , e.g. , Exs. S

- U, Exs. 22

- 31. ) 4 The UCBR found that before resigning, Claimant never: informed Cieri that she felt bullied, harassed, or threatened; filed a complaint with the human resources department; or inquired about a transfer to another position. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 5

- 7.) The UCBR specifically rejected Claimant’s asserted reasons for believing that her work

co n ditions were intolerable. Moreover, w hen Employer schedule d a meeting to
address communication issues with Claimant, Claimant left the meeting before
discussin g her concerns. We agree with the UCBR that Claimant failed to satisfy her
burden of prov ing that she resigned for a necessitous and compelling reason. See
Porco , 828 A.2d at 42 8 ( “[A] claimant must take common sense action to obviate the

4 Most of the email printouts admitted into evidence contain Claimant’s handwritten notes, in which she explain s how the emails demonstrate Employer’s micromanagement, harass ment , and bull ying. Claimant admitted , however, that she added the handwritten notes to the email printouts solely for purposes of this litigation . (N.T., 8/24/15, at 15 .)7

problem so that he or she does not have to terminate employment . . . by informing [his or her] superiors of the harassing, humiliating or abusive conduct.”)

.

Accordingly, we affirm. 5

___________________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge

5 In her petition for review and brief, Claimant also asserts that the hearing transcripts contain errors and are missing portions of t estimony; however, Claimant does not specify what she believes is missing or erroneously transcribed. Therefore, we will not consider this claim.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Melissa Royer, : : No. 2598 C.D. 2015 Petitioner :

: v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : : Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 8 th day of July , 201 6 , we hereby affirm the October 16, 2015, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board o f Review.

___________________________________ ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge