Unemployment Compensation Termination of Employment Voluntary Departure
Ackley v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, PICS Case No. 17-0714 (Pa. Commw. July 13, 2017) Hearthway, J. (10 pages).
Claimant was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits where he made a knowing choice to leave his full-time position in favor of a part-time position with a new employer. The court affirmed an order finding claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
Claimant was employed full-time by Express Employment Professionals from May 2, 2016, through May 27, 2017, when he terminated his employment. The day prior to termination, claimant accepted a job offer from Walmart. He began working there part-time on June 1, 2016. Claimant then applied for unemployment compensation benefits (UC). The Altoona UC Service Center granted him benefits. An appeals referee affirmed the determination. After employer filed an appeal, the parties testified at a remand hearing. Claimant testified that when he applied for and accepted the job with Walmart, he believed it was full-time. According to claimant, he was not informed that the job would be part-time until his initial training period began. Claimant also testified that he "just assumed" the new position was full-time. After the hearing, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review reversed the referee's decision and denied claimant UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law because claimant's unemployment was due to his voluntarily departure. The Board did not find claimant credible with respect to his claims that the Walmart offer was for full-time employment and that he did not learn that the position was part-time until he started training. Rather, the Board relied on claimant's own testimony that he merely "assumed" the job was full-time. Claimant petitioned for review of the Board's decision, asserting he unknowingly accepted a part-time job and quit his job with employer because he was offered and accepted a new job. These facts alone constituted "necessitous and compelling reasons" precluding the Board and the court from considering the new job's part-time status and lower pay, according to claimant. The appellate court noted that it was bound by the Board's findings. Thus, the court went on to consider whether claimant, who voluntarily terminated his full-time employment to take a part-time position, had necessitous and compelling cause to do so. The court reviewed relevant Pennsylvania precedent and concluded that claimant accepted a part-time position by choice and then commenced that employment. There were no external factors that subsequently and unexpectedly limited claimant's source of income. Moreover, claimant's decision to quit his full-time position in exchange for a part-time job that he only assumed was full-time was not consistent with common sense and prudence. He simply was not "unemployed" through no fault of his own, according to the opinion. Since claimant failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that he had necessitous and compelling cause to voluntarily terminate his employment with Express Employment, he was not eligible for UC benefits.