C. Rensman v. UCBR
475 & 476 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 2, 2017Background
- Rensman quit his service-advisor job at Abington Auto World on July 2, 2016, after about a year; he earned $350/week plus commission.
- He initially applied for UC citing "lack of work," received $563 in benefits, but later admitted in interviews he quit because a promised promotion never materialized and he believed Employer planned to change pay to a draw system that would reduce his earnings.
- Employer denied any promised $60,000 salary and said any pay-structure change occurred on August 1, 2016, after Rensman had quit; managers testified there was speculation but no confirmed change before his resignation.
- The UC Service Center found Rensman ineligible under 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling cause) and imposed a $563 fault overpayment for initially misrepresenting the reason for separation.
- The Referee modified the overpayment to non-fault but found no necessitous and compelling cause to quit; the Board reinstated a fault overpayment and affirmed ineligibility, discrediting Rensman’s evidence of promised pay and pre-quit knowledge of a pay change.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: Rensman failed to show a substantial unilateral change in terms of employment or any established reduction in pay under the alleged new pay structure.
Issues
| Issue | Rensman’s Argument | Employer’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rensman had necessitous and compelling cause to quit under §402(b) | He quit because a promised promotion/pay and an imminent shift to a draw system would substantially reduce his pay | No confirmed promise; any pay-structure change was speculative and occurred after he quit; he quit from wage dissatisfaction | Held: No necessitous and compelling cause; Board credibility findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether pay-structure change constituted a substantial unilateral change in terms | The alleged change to a draw system would materially lower his earnings and justify quitting | No proof he knew of the change pre-quit and no evidence of actual or quantifiable pay reduction | Held: Insufficient proof of a change in terms or of any substantial reduction in pay |
| Whether the Board erred in assessing a fault overpayment for initial misstatement | He initially reported lack of work but later corrected facts; argued no fault | Misrepresentation caused issuance of benefits; fault assessment appropriate | Held: Rensman waived detailed challenge to overpayment; no reversible error apparent |
| Whether the Board erred in credibility/findings of fact | Claimant disputed Board’s disbelief of his testimony about promises and coworker statements | Board is ultimate factfinder and may discredit testimony and hearsay | Held: Court defers to Board credibility determinations; no error of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Monaco v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 565 A.2d 127 (Pa. 1989) (mere wage dissatisfaction is insufficient for necessitous and compelling cause)
- Whitlatch v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 A.3d 397 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (substantial unilateral changes in employment terms may constitute necessitous and compelling cause)
- Elliott Co., Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 A.3d 881 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (percentage reduction in pay is significant in determining substantiality of change)
- RIO Supply, Inc. of PA v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 124 A.3d 401 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
- Brunswick Hotel and Conference Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements required to show necessitous and compelling cause)