Court Opinion

ID: 9761903
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:58:54.429216+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:27.617721
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Judge Blatt:
I respectfully dissent.
The majority concludes that the petitioner was properly denied benefits because she failed to show that she had no real choice except to leave her employment and *480because she made no reasonable effort to maintain the employment relationship.
Preliminarily, I would note that a claimant is under no duty to request a leave of absence, where, such a request may be futile. See Evasovich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 80 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 395, 471 A.2d 921 (1984); see also Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 499 Pa. 125, 451 A.2d 1353 (1982). Furthermore, the record here indicates that the petitioner testified that her fathers illness was serious, that she planned to stay with him permanently at his home in North Carolina, where she also had a step-brother residing, and that she did not request a leave of absence although she had been previously granted one. The record, however, is silent as to whether or not the petitioner could have moved her father to Philadelphia, so as to enable her to maintain her employment. And, although the referee made no findings on any of these questions, he concluded that, inasmuch as she had failed to request a leave of absence, she voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
I believe, therefore, that the referee failed to make the findings necessary to enable him to determine whether or not a request for a leave of absence would have been futile.
Accordingly, I would remand this matter to the Board for those necessary findings.