P.E. Roscioli v. UCBR
1344 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Feb 3, 2017Background
- Claimant Patricia Roscioli worked as an accounts receivable representative for Fresenius Vascular Care from December 28, 2015, to January 7, 2016, resigning after about one week of work.
- During the week of December 28 she received general training; supervisor testified additional one-on-one training with a team leader would follow.
- Claimant reported feeling stressed and overwhelmed on January 4, called out sick January 5–6, and on January 7 told Employer the job was not a good fit and resigned.
- Local service center denied unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(b) (voluntary leaving without necessitous and compelling cause); referee and Board affirmed the denial.
- The Board credited employer testimony that more training would be provided and found Claimant quit due to dissatisfaction rather than a compelling necessity; Claimant appealed to Commonwealth Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant established necessitous and compelling cause to quit | Roscioli: inadequate training and stress (including doctor’s note) meant she had no real choice but to quit | Employer: offered continued one-on-one training and urged more time; claimant did not attempt to preserve employment | Held: No — claimant failed to show necessitous and compelling cause and did not make reasonable efforts to preserve employment |
| Whether mere dissatisfaction or short tenure can support benefits | Roscioli: short training period made position untenable | Employer: dissatisfaction and brief employment do not justify quitting | Held: Mere dissatisfaction and brief tenure are insufficient under precedent |
| Whether Board’s factual findings are supported by record | Roscioli: contested Board credibility findings and raised extra-record materials | Employer: Board crediting employer witnesses was supported by evidence; extra-record evidence properly excluded | Held: Board findings are supported by substantial evidence and are binding on appeal |
| Whether claimant’s health concerns established cause | Roscioli: sought medical treatment and had note for viral infection due to stress | Employer: claimant did not establish health-related compelling necessity; Board rejected health claim | Held: Health claim not credited; did not establish necessitous and compelling cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Renda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (necessitous and compelling cause standard for voluntary quit)
- Cowls v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 427 A.2d 722 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (quitter must show efforts to preserve employment and lack of real choice)
- Gioia v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 661 A.2d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (examples of failing to preserve employment)
- Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977) (necessitous and compelling cause is question of law on review)
- Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (mere dissatisfaction with working conditions is insufficient)
- Leace v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 92 A.3d 1272 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (Board is ultimate factfinder; findings supported by substantial evidence are binding)