Neshannock Twp. v. UCBR, Neshannock Twp. v. UCBR

Claimant (Tina Root) worked part-time at Neshannock Township’s ice rink after a full‑time management position ended; she averaged ~8 hours/week and told Employer she would leave once she passed nursing boards and obtained a nursing job.
Claimant repeatedly told Employer her end date was contingent on passing boards and extended her availability several times; Employer continued to schedule her through April 26, 2016.
Claimant was not scheduled for May; Employer texted her to stop in and turn in her keys; Claimant complied and filed for unemployment benefits (effective Jan. 3, 2016).
The Service Center initially found Claimant ineligible under 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous cause); Claimant appealed and a Referee held a hearing and granted benefits, finding no voluntary quit or willful misconduct.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed the Referee; Employer petitioned for reconsideration which was denied, then appealed to this Court. The Court affirmed the Board.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant gave a specific resignation date	Claimant gave a date/intent to quit and thus voluntarily left	Claimant never provided a definite date; separation was contingent on boards	Court: Substantial evidence shows no exact resignation date was given
Whether Claimant rescinded any resignation	Employer: Claimant requested removal from schedule and intended to quit	Claimant: repeatedly extended availability and worked through April	Court: Substantial evidence supports that Claimant revoked any prior dates
Whether Employer took steps to replace Claimant before any revocation	Employer: hired a new Zamboni driver in April to replace Claimant	Claimant: hiring was for a different vacancy; Employer did not replace claimant before rescission	Court: Substantial evidence shows Employer did not replace Claimant prior to rescission
Proper legal framework: voluntary quit (§402(b)) vs. willful misconduct (§402(e))	Employer: Board should apply §402(b) (voluntary quit without necessitous cause)	Board: threshold is whether separation was voluntary; here it wasn’t, so §402(e) analysis controlled	Court: Board correctly treated as potentially involuntary separation and analyzed willful misconduct; no willful misconduct found

Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738 (discussing substantial‑evidence standard)
Taylor v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 78 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (Board’s factual findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
Walker v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (claimant bears burden in voluntary‑quit cases)
Fekos Enters. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 776 A.2d 1018 (voluntary termination requires conscious intent to leave)
Roberts v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 432 A.2d 646 (definition of voluntary termination)
Phila. Parent Child Ctr., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 403 A.2d 1362 (consider totality of circumstances to determine intent to quit)
Norman Aston Klinger & Assocs. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 561 A.2d 841 (distinguishing voluntary vs. involuntary separation)
Stankiewicz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 548 A.2d 366 (standard of review for legal questions)