M. Miller v. UCBR
308 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Michael Miller worked as a full-time administrative assistant for Surplus Outlet LLC from January 2, 2012 until he quit on October 17, 2016.
- Miller reported he quit because his duties increased without a pay increase and due to conflicts with a store manager.
- The Department of Labor and Industry found him ineligible for unemployment benefits under Section 402(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling reason).
- A Referee held a hearing (employer VP and president testified), found Miller failed to prove a necessitous and compelling reason, and denied benefits.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review adopted the Referee’s findings, added that Miller quit from dissatisfaction with pay and workload, denied reconsideration, and Miller appealed to this Court.
- The Court affirmed, concluding Miller did not show circumstances compelling a reasonable person to quit, nor that he made reasonable efforts to preserve employment; Board credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Miller had a "necessitous and compelling" reason to voluntarily quit | Miller: duties increased, long-term pay stagnation, manager conflict made continuation futile | Employer: Miller voiced no contemporaneous concerns when offered opportunities to discuss, quit voluntarily over dissatisfaction | Held: No — claimant failed to prove necessitous and compelling reason; dissatisfaction alone insufficient |
| Whether Miller made reasonable efforts to preserve his employment | Miller: previously complained two years earlier; approaching again would have been futile | Employer: Miller declined to discuss concerns when invited and spent time with VP without raising issues | Held: No — claimant did not take reasonable steps to preserve employment |
| Whether Board’s factual findings and credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence | Miller: argues the Board ignored his testimony and believed employer lies | Employer/Board: testimony and chronology show multiple opportunities to address issues which Miller declined | Held: Yes — Board’s credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Philadelphia Housing Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (DiGiacomo), 29 A.3d 99 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (burden on employee to prove necessitous and compelling reason)
- PECO Energy Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (elements for proving necessitous and compelling reason and obligation to preserve employment)
- Hazzard v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 413 A.2d 478 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employee must show employer misled or changed terms to excuse quit)
- DeNofa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 413 A.2d 786 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (mere dissatisfaction with wages/conditions insufficient)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa.) (Board is ultimate factfinder; may accept/reject testimony)
- Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa.) (Board findings supported by substantial evidence are conclusive)
- Popoleo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 777 A.2d 1252 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition of substantial evidence)
- On Line Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 941 A.2d 786 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (scope of appellate review over Board decisions)