E.A. Banks v. UCBR
2711 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Claimant Emmitt A. Banks worked for staffing agency Tristar from January 2015 until May 28, 2015, assigned to work at Transicoil. Transicoil closed and May 28 was his last day.
- Salter Industries offered Claimant a purported new full-time general labor position contingent on passing a drug/nicotine test; Claimant took the test on June 2, after he had already resigned from Tristar effective May 28.
- Claimant verbally notified Tristar on May 14 that he was terminating his employment effective the last day of the Transicoil assignment; he did not otherwise keep close contact with Tristar and conceded he resigned.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation (UC); the UC Service Center denied benefits under Section 402(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling cause). A Referee and then the UCBR affirmed denial.
- The Referee modified an overpayment determination to non-fault and removed penalty assessments; Claimant appealed the denial to the Commonwealth Court pro se.
- The court reviewed whether Claimant had a firm job offer or other necessitous and compelling cause to justify quitting and whether Tristar (not Transicoil) was his employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant quit for a necessitous and compelling reason (acceptance of a new job) | Banks contends he had a firm offer from Salter and quit to take that job | UCBR/Tristar argue the offer was contingent (drug test), lacked definite start date/pay, and was not firm when he quit | Held: No necessitous and compelling reason — offer was not firm; benefits denied under §402(b) |
| Whether Claimant’s employer was Transicoil (so separation was through no fault of his employer) | Banks asserts Transicoil was his employer and its closure caused his separation | UCBR finds Tristar (staffing agency) was his employer because he was assigned through Tristar and he resigned from Tristar | Held: Tristar was Claimant’s employer; his voluntary resignation from Tristar bars benefits |
| Credibility and sufficiency of evidence supporting UCBR findings | Banks argues facts support his version (implied) | UCBR emphasizes claimant’s inconsistent testimony and lack of definite terms; factfinder entitled to resolve credibility | Held: UCBR’s findings are supported by substantial evidence; court will not reweigh credibility |
| Whether procedural/other issues not raised below can be considered on appeal | Banks raised additional questions (rate reduction threat, WARN Act) | UCBR/Tristar note those issues were not raised before Referee/UCBR | Held: Issues not raised below are waived and not addressed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Twp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (elements for necessitous and compelling cause)
- Township of N. Huntingdon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 768 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (receipt/acceptance of a firm offer can constitute cause)
- Baron v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 384 A.2d 271 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (offer must be definite to be considered a firm offer)
- Eckenrod v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 325 A.2d 320 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (lack of definite date of hire means no firm offer)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (UCBR is ultimate factfinder; appellate court cannot reweigh evidence)