B.A. Keller v. UCBR, B.A. Keller v. UCBR

Claimant Brandon A. Keller worked as a cook from Jan 16, 2014 to Aug 17, 2015 and was on court-ordered probation while employed.
On Aug 17, 2015 Claimant failed a random drug test, was arrested, and was incarcerated Aug 17–Sept 20, 2015. Employer told him it would consider his circumstances when he was able/available to work.
After release he overdosed on heroin (Sept 20–23, 2015), was re-incarcerated until Oct 28, 2015, then entered inpatient rehabilitation and was released Nov 17, 2015.
Claimant texted Employer on Nov 20, 2015 inquiring about work; Employer offered a shift on Dec 1, 2015; Claimant said he would let Employer know but never reported or followed up.
Local service center denied benefits for the week ending Nov 21, 2015 under 43 P.S. § 801(d)(1) (not able/available) and for the week ending Dec 5, 2015 under 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous/compelling cause); the referee and the Board affirmed and Claimant appealed to this Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant was able and available for suitable work for week ending Nov 21, 2015 (§ 401(d)(1))	Keller says he was attending to personal matters after discharge (accessing apartment/personal effects) and thus disputes denial.	Employer notes Claimant was incarcerated/hospitalized/in rehab through Nov 17 and thus was not able/available during the period at issue.	Court held Claimant was not able/available because confinement (incarceration/hospitalization/rehab) effectively removed him from the labor market; denial affirmed.
Whether Claimant established necessitous and compelling cause for voluntarily leaving or failing to return to work for week ending Dec 5, 2015 (§ 402(b))	Keller contends hostile work environment and harassment by co-workers made continued employment intolerable, so he refused to return.	Employer testified it addressed the reported conflict with co-workers and received no further complaints; Employer offered work Dec 1 and Claimant failed to accept or follow up.	Court held Keller failed to prove necessitous/compelling cause or that he took reasonable steps to preserve the employment relationship; denial affirmed.

PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (burden on claimant to prove necessitous and compelling cause for voluntary quit)
Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (definition of necessitous and compelling cause)
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 A.2d 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (personality conflicts/dissatisfaction are insufficient absent intolerable conditions)
Torres-Bobe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 A.3d 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (scope of review and substantial evidence standard)
Jenkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 796 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (claimant must attempt to resolve conflicts and inform employer)
Rohde v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 A.3d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (ability and availability for suitable work standard)
Harwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 823 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (availability analysis — removal from labor market)
Masko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 447 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (incarceration and availability)
Munski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 A.3d 133 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (unchallenged findings of fact are conclusive on appeal)