P. Puzzuto v. UCBR, P. Puzzuto v. UCBR

Background

Patrick V. Puzzuto worked as a full‑time Line Foreman for Henkels & McCoy from 1988 until he voluntarily quit on June 15–16, 2016 after notifying his project manager he was giving one week’s notice.
Leading up to his resignation, Puzzuto complained employer (1) failed to pay promised per diem and hotel reimbursements and (2) would not authorize overtime for a large fiber‑pull job he believed impossible to finish in a 10‑hour day.
The project manager and area manager testified employer normally paid overtime, denied promises of per diem, offered to pay overtime if the crew finished the job the same day, and instructed Puzzuto to box the job and finish the next day if needed.
The Referee found Puzzuto became dissatisfied, sent texts giving notice on June 15, and was released immediately; the Referee concluded he quit due to dissatisfaction and did not prove necessitous and compelling cause.
The Board affirmed; the Commonwealth Court reviewed whether substantial evidence supports the Board’s legal conclusion that Puzzuto failed to meet the four‑part test for necessitous and compelling cause and failed to take reasonable steps to preserve employment.

Issues

Issue	Puzzuto's Argument	Henkels & McCoy's Argument	Held
Whether quitting was for "cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" under Section 402(b)	Employer demanded unreasonable work (15,000 ft pull) without overtime; this created real, substantial pressure to quit	Puzzuto merely expressed dissatisfaction; he failed to show deception, unilateral change, or that conditions were unknown and then became onerous	Court held no — dissatisfaction/expectation of overtime alone insufficient; Puzzuto did not satisfy the four‑part test
Whether Puzzuto made reasonable efforts to preserve employment before quitting	He attempted to complain via texts contemporaneous with quitting; earlier complaints were unnecessary because employer refused overtime	Employer and Referee showed he did not raise concerns earlier or allow employer chance to remedy; employer offered alternatives that day	Held no — claimant failed to take necessary and reasonable steps to preserve employment (no prior efforts; text messages came too late)
Whether employer’s alleged failure to pay per diem and reimbursements justified quitting	These unpaid promises forced resignation	Employer denied per diem promises and reimbursement claims; issue was not raised before the Board	Held waived — Puzzuto did not raise these claims before the Board, so they are not considered on appeal
Whether factual findings were supported by substantial evidence	Puzzuto argued circumstances were more severe than found	Employer testimony and Referee findings supported the Board; Puzzuto did not challenge the Board’s findings on appeal	Held for Board — findings are binding and supported by record

Key Cases Cited

Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (standard of review for necessity of cause question)
Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling reasons)
Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 945 A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (four‑part test for necessitous and compelling cause)
Hazzard v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 413 A.2d 478 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (working conditions must be unknown then become onerous, or employer deceived/changed terms)
DeNofa v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 413 A.2d 786 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (mere dissatisfaction with conditions or lack of overtime is insufficient)
PECO Energy Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 682 A.2d 58 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (claimant must take reasonable steps to preserve employment)
Porco v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 828 A.2d 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (employer must be given opportunity to remedy workplace complaints)
Campbell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 694 A.2d 1167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (unchallenged Board findings of fact are binding on appeal)