Munski v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
29 A.3d 133
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Munski worked for Verizon as a full-time service technician from Feb 7, 2005, to July 3, 2010; he accepted Verizon's Enhanced Income Security Plan (EISP) in 2010, receiving $61,000 total compensation.
- He applied for unemployment benefits after accepting the EISP; benefits were denied as he voluntarily left without necessitous and compelling cause.
- At hearing, he testified that the EISP arose from expected layoffs and that those hired after Aug 3, 2003 could be laid off; those hired before could not.
- A February 26, 2010 letter indicated the company may proceed to layoff if the EISP did not sufficiently reduce the workforce, with no specific positions identified.
- Supervisor Cilento denied telling Claimant his position would be eliminated; area manager had suggested it was in the best interest of post-2003 hires to accept the EISP.
- The Referee found the EISP was voluntary and that Claimant had not shown a necessitous and compelling reason to resign, a determination the Board affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was necessitous and compelling cause to quit | Munski believed layoff was imminent based on past actions and notices. | The notice was general and did not target his position; no assurances of elimination were given. | Not established; Board affirmed. |
| Whether accepting the EISP constituted a voluntary quit rather than a legitimate severance | Acceptance was compelled by concern for job loss. | EISP offered voluntarily; employer did not threaten elimination of his specific position. | No necessitous and compelling reason; quit upheld. |
| Whether the prior 2009 layoffs support a necessitous cause | 2009 layoffs showed elimination of similar positions could occur. | 2009 actions targeted a different group; not determinative of current case. | Not probative; could not be relied upon to show current necessity. |
| Whether evidence showed specific warnings about his job being eliminated | Supervisor indicated best outcome would be to take the offer. | No one informed Claimant his specific position would be eliminated. | No specific warning; no necessitous and compelling cause. |
| Whether the case law supports the result given the general notice | Cases like Wright-Swygert, Eby, Nazaruk show sufficient evidence when warnings exist. | Distinguishable because notices were general, not specific. | Distinguishable; not sufficient here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wright-Swygert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 16 A.3d 1204 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (warning of elimination supported necessitous cause when specific job warned)
- Eby v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 629 A.2d 176 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (sufficient evidence of necessitous cause when employer-notice indicated group termination)
- Empire Intimates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 655 A.2d 662 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1995) (need for ordinary common sense and preservation of employment; downsizing not speculative)
- Petrill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 883 A.2d 714 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (mere speculation about future job circumstances not enough for necessitous cause)
- Campbell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 694 A.2d 1167 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1997) (recognizes burden on claimant to show need to quit; evidence must show real choice to leave)