Court Opinion

ID: 9544396
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:55:23.703263+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:12:55.544998
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Palladino:
I respectfully dissent.
The question of whether a retirement becomes an involuntary termination when a retiree, retiring with full pension benefits, attempts to rescind her retirement in order to remain eligible for Employer provided economic benefits has not previously been addressed by this Court. I strongly disagree with the majority’s suggested resolution of this question.
In the instant case, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirmed the decision of a referee concluding that Eleanor Zimmerman (Claimant) voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1
*281That section states, in pertinent part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week— . . .
(b) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
It is beyond dispute that retirement is a voluntary termination of employment. Matty v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 311, 457 A.2d 1039 (1983); Adamski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 639, 441 A.2d 502 (1982).
The fundamental purpose of the Law is to provide compensation during a search for work to individuals who are unemployed through no fault of their own. Renne v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 299, 453 A.2d 318 (1982); Matty v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 73 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 311, 457 A.2d 1039 (1983); Barillaro v. Unemployment Compenstion Board of Review, 36 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 325, 387 A.2d 1324 (1978). It was “designed to alleviate the rigors of unemployment and most specifically to assuage the distress of the individual unemployed worker.” Gladieux Food Service, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 479 Pa. 324, 330, 388 A.2d 678, 681 (1978). Basic to this concept is the demonstrated willingness to remain part of the work force.
Petitioner readily admits that she does not wish to remain a part of the work force. In feet, Petitioner testified that she intended to retire at her convenience and only wanted to rescind her retirement until a Workmens Compensation Award became final.2 The instant case is not the situation that the Law intended to reme*282dy. A claimant who retires with full pension is not involuntarily unemployed without income. Claimant merely wanted to postpone her retirement because she believed that retirement would disqualify her from collecting Workmens Compensation.3
President Judge James C. Crumlish, Jr. in his able and well articulated opinion Spong v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 560, 404 A.2d 444 (1979), stated the rationale that under Section 402(b) conduct which evidences a lack of genuine desire to work and be self-supporting and which discourages continuing employment can be a basis for disqualification from Unemployment Compensation benefits.
Claimant has set out to retire on two occasions.4 She has stated that her sole reason for returning to work was the preservation of a Workmens Compensation claim.5 This is conduct which clearly discourages continuing employment and does not evidence a genuine desire to work and remain self-supporting.
The majority states that Tretter v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 70, 434 A.2d 919 (1981) is controlling. However, *283Tretter addresses the situation under our developing case law in the area of resignation, not retirement. Further, Tretter focuses on the actions of the employer. The actions of an employer are not relevant to the situation where a claimant retires with full pension benefits, rather than resigns to seek other employment.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 94 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 44, 502 A.2d 771 (1986) again focuses on resignation and retirement as if they are synonymous. However, there is a clear distinction between resignation and retirement and Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry is factually distinguishable because the claimant therein engaged in conduct which evidenced a genuine desire to work and be self-supporting. There, claimant attempted to rescind her retirement because she found that she could not live on the amount of her pension and intended to remain permanently, not temporarily, attached to the work force. This is unlike the claimant in this case who only wanted to rescind her retirement for a brief period of time in order, she believed, to remain eligible for Workmens Compensation.
Because the Law did not intend to remedy the Claimants situation and because Claimant has voluntarily terminated her employment by retiring without evidencing a genuine desire to work and be self-supporting, I believe that we must affirm the Order of the Board denying Unemployment Compensation to Claimant.

 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b)(1).

 See majority opinion in. 1.

 See transcript of January 10, 1985 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review hearing, pg. 8.

 See majority opinion in. 2.

 See letter from Robert H. Freeman, Director of Personnel and Labor Relations, Philadelphia County Board of Assistance to Eleanor Zimmerman appended to transcript of January 10, 1985 Unemployment Compensation Board of Review hearing and made a part of the record as Exhibit # 12. By way of response, Ms. Zimmerman wrote the following on the bottom of the letter and sent it back to Mr. Freeman:
I am cancelling my retirement due August 2, 1984 until the decision is made by Workmens Compensation Board ... I will be ready to retire as soon as I receive my checks that I am entitled.