Opinion
April 11, 1962.
June 13, 1962.
Unemployment Compensation — Voluntary termination of employment — Burden of proof — Domestic circumstances — Employe helped by wife — Termination of employment after separation from wife — Unemployment Compensation Law.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appears that continuing employment was available to claimant, the burden rests on him to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for having voluntarily terminated his employment.
2. The reason for an employe's voluntarily terminating his employment must meet the test of ordinary common sense and prudence.
3. In an unemployment compensation case, in which it appeared that claimant, employed as a custodian and maintenance man, during his employment was assisted by his wife as to some duties, although she was not hired to do any part of the job; and that claimant terminated his employment, after he and his wife separated, because he felt he could not do the work alone; it was Held that the board properly concluded that claimant was disqualified from benefits under § 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, on the ground that he had voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, and that the board could also have justified its determination under § 402(b)(2), because claimant's unemployment was, in fact, due to the separation from his wife, a domestic circumstance specifically excluded as constituting good cause for terminating employment.
Before RHODES, P.J., ERVIN, WRIGHT, WOODSIDE, WATKINS, MONTGOMERY, and FLOOD, JJ.
Appeal, No. 148, April T., 1962, by claimant, from decision of Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-69797, in re claim of James Domico. Decision affirmed.
Theodore A. Tenor, for appellant, submitted a brief.
Sydney Reuben, Assistant Attorney General, with him Raymond Kleiman, Deputy Attorney General, and David Stahl, Attorney General, for Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, appellee.
Argued April 11, 1962.
This is an unemployment compensation case in which the Bureau of Employment Security, the Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, all concluded that the claimant was disqualified for benefits under the provisions of § 402(b)(1) of the law, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(1), on the ground that he voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
The claimant, James Domico, was last employed by C.C. Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, as custodian and maintenance man, on August 31, 1961. During his employment the claimant's wife assisted him with some duties, although she was not hired to do any part of the job. The claimant terminated his employment, after he and his wife separated, because he felt he could not do the work alone, despite the fact he could have continued in said employment.
Continuing employment was available to this claimant and the burden rested on him to show cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating his employment. Smith Unemployment Compensation Case, 167 Pa. Super. 242, 74 A.2d 523 (1950). The reason must meet the test of ordinary common sense and prudence. Kaylock Unemployment Compensation Case, 165 Pa. Super. 376, 67 A.2d 801 (1949). The fact that his wife who helped him with his work, but who had no employment relationship, left him, does not constitute such a reason. Martin Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 424, 178 A.2d 825 (1962).
The board could equally as well have justified its determination under § 402(b)(2) of the law, 43 P. S. § 802(b)(2), because his unemployment was, in fact, due to the separation from his wife, constituting a domestic circumstance specifically excluded as such reason. Buchko Unemployment Compensation Case, 196 Pa. Super. 559, 175 A.2d 914 (1961); Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Super. 427, 178 A.2d 775 (1962).
Decision affirmed.