Smithley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
8 A.3d 1027
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2010Background
- Claimant, a lab technician for Saint Gobain Ceramics & Plastics for 43 years, accepted an early retirement package in April 2009 as part of a workforce reduction.
- Package offered to the five most senior employees; five volunteers would receive severance and then layoffs would proceed down the seniority list if needed.
- Claimant retired on May 1, 2009 and later sought unemployment benefits, which were initially granted but later stopped because she voluntarily quit.
- Referee found she was ineligible under Section 402(b) since continuing work was available due to her high seniority if she did not take the package.
- Claimant testified she would not have retired if the package had not been offered and that continuing work would have protected her from being laid off earlier.
- Board affirmed the Referee’s decision; on appeal, Claimant argued the quit was not for necessitous and compelling reasons and that coworkers who accepted the package received benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did claimant voluntarily quit for necessitous and compelling reasons? | Smithley contends the retirement was not a voluntary quit under 402(b). | Smithley quit when she accepted a voluntary early retirement package; continued work was available due to seniority. | Affirmed; voluntary quit found; necessitous and compelling cause not shown. |
| Was continuing employment available to claimant, given seniority and the downsizing plan? | Smithley argues she would have faced layoffs, so termination was not voluntary. | Employer would have laid off others first; claimant’s seniority meant continued work was available. | Affirmed; continuing work available negates necessitous and compelling cause. |
| Is the comparison to coworkers who received benefits a basis to reverse? | Three coworkers who accepted the package received benefits, so claimant should as well. | one case’s error cannot dictate another; case-specific facts apply. | Affirmed; not reversible based on other cases. |
Key Cases Cited
- Renda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (necessitous and compelling cause framework; burden on claimant to prove)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (requires real and substantial pressure to terminate employment)
- Mansberger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 785 A.2d 126 (Pa.Cmwlth.2001) (relates to voluntariness of resignation and necessitous and compelling cause)
- Beddis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 1053 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (interpretation of voluntary layoff under 402(b))