D. Wallace v. UCBR, D. Wallace v. UCBR

Wallace was hired by Sykes Enterprises on Sept. 21, 2015 at $14.25/hr and understood she would work as a call-center customer service representative (CSR).
On her second day she was assigned different duties involving data entry/transmission; she and a coworker were told these duties justified higher pay but no raise occurred.
Wallace continued working for ~6 months, repeatedly requested a raise (late 2015–early 2016), and resigned on March 22, 2016 claiming Employer changed her duties and failed to increase pay.
The local Service Center denied unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(b); a Referee and the UC Board of Review affirmed, finding Wallace left for dissatisfaction with pay and that the duty changes were not a substantial unilateral change.
Wallace appealed pro se to the Commonwealth Court, challenging factual findings (credibility of Employer’s manager) and arguing she had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board’s credibility/findings about job title and duties are supported	Wallace: manager lied; her duties materially changed to Data Analyst	Board/Sykes: manager’s testimony credited; duties remained within CSR scope	Findings based on credited testimony are supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive on review
Whether Wallace quit for a necessitous and compelling reason under §402(b)	Wallace: unilateral substantial change in duties warranted pay increase and justified quitting	Board/Sykes: she quit due to dissatisfaction with pay; changes were reasonable and not substantial	No necessitous and compelling reason; mere dissatisfaction with pay is insufficient
Whether employer imposed a substantial unilateral change in terms of employment	Wallace: duties and title changed substantially (Data Analyst vs CSR)	Board/Sykes: title remained CSR; tasks were reasonable modifications of CSR work	Court found no substantial unilateral change; tasks were reasonable modifications
Whether Wallace made reasonable efforts to preserve employment	Wallace: she repeatedly requested a raise and sought resolution before quitting	Board/Sykes: she requested raises but did not prove a substantial change; her efforts insufficient to convert mere dissatisfaction into necessitous cause	Court accepted that she asked for raises but held that was insufficient absent a substantial change in employment terms

Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 913 A.2d 331 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (scope of appellate review of Board findings)
Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (substantial-evidence standard for Board findings)
Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (definition of substantial evidence and limits on reweighing credibility)
Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 650 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (Board determines witness credibility and weight of evidence)
Collier Stone Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 876 A.2d 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (necessitous and compelling standard for quitting)
Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (substantial unilateral change can constitute necessitous cause)
Hostovich v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 414 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (dissatisfaction with wages alone not necessitous cause)
Kistler v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 416 A.2d 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (reasonable job modifications must be accepted or employee risks ineligibility)
Baird v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 372 A.2d 1254 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (Board’s finding of primary reason for quitting controls review)
Umedman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (appellate court cannot consider evidence not in the certified record)