J. Sharkey v. UCBR
2712 C.D. 2015
Pa. Commw. Ct.Oct 19, 2016Background
- Claimant James Sharkey worked for HRI, Inc. (laborer/flagger) from 2009 until he quit on August 31, 2015.
- His work required travel throughout Pennsylvania; employer warned hires that assignments may be distant and temporary (typically one to two weeks per site).
- In August 2015 he was assigned to a prevailing-wage job in Johnstown ~96 miles from his home, producing ~4 hours daily commute and 8–12 hour workdays starting at 6:30 a.m.
- Claimant quit citing safety concerns (fell asleep twice driving home), long commute, and co-worker conduct; he did not seek employer-paid assistance, hotel lodging, room-sharing, or formal help from HR, and did not carpool with a co-worker he feared drove intoxicated.
- Referee denied unemployment benefits under Section 402(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling cause); the Board affirmed; Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant had "necessitous and compelling" cause to quit due to long commute and safety concerns | Sharkey: commute and falling asleep while driving created an unsafe, insurmountable barrier to continued employment | UCBR/HRI: Claimant knew travel was inherent to the job, continued work was available, and he failed to take reasonable steps (ask HR, seek lodging, carpool) to remedy transportation issues | Court: Affirmed denial — commute/safety concerns did not constitute necessitous and compelling cause because Claimant failed to make reasonable efforts to remedy the situation and accepted travel risk when hired |
Key Cases Cited
- Cardwell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 465 A.2d 145 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (burden on claimant to show necessitous and compelling cause)
- Stratford v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 466 A.2d 1119 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (job travel known at hiring; quitting over short-term distant assignment is a "radical remedy")
- Thomas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 560 A.2d 922 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (transportation inconvenience justifies quit only if insurmountable despite reasonable efforts)
- Chamoun v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 542 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
- Turgeon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 729 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope of appellate review limited to constitutional violations, errors of law, or lack of substantial evidence)