Opinion by
Antowyne D. Charles (Petitioner) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversing the decision of a refеree to award him unemployment compensation benefits. We affirm.
Petitioner was employed by Rotondo Penn Construction Company (Employer) as а concrete panel repairman from August 1986 to February 1, 1987. His job site was approximately forty-five (45) miles from his home and he used his car to get there. About three weeks prior to his last day of work, Petitioner requested that Employer lay him off because his car was gradually breaking down and he needed time to repair it, but Employer refused to do so. Petitioner testified that company policy specifically provides that if an employee is absent morе than three days without a medical excuse, he will be terminated. Notes of Testimony at 5. When Petitioners car became inoperable, he telephoned Employer on three consecutive work days to report off and to notify Employer of his car problems. On the third day, Petitioner quit.
The Office of Employment Security (OES) denied benefits and, on appeal, a referee, before whom only *441 Petitioner testified, granted benefits. On Employers appeаl, the Board reversed the referees award and denied benefits. 1
On appeal to this court, Petitioner presents two issues for our review: (1) whether the Bоard committed an error of law in concluding that Petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment; and (2) if Petitioner voluntarily terminated his employment, whether the Board erred in determining that he lacked cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for doing so.
Voluntary Quit
Petitioner first contends that the Board erred in finding him inеligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., PL. (1937) 2897,
as amended,
43 PS. §802(b). Section 402(b) renders ineligible for benefits аn employee who voluntarily terminates his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. In a voluntary quit case, this court must first determine whether the facts surrounding Petitioners separation from employment constitute a voluntary resignation or a discharge.
Maines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
*442 Petitioner does not disputе that he quit. N.T. at 5-6. However, Petitioner contends that he only quit to avoid being fired pursuant to. Employers policy of discharging employees absent more thаn three days without a doctors excuse. Petitioner assets that when he requested a layoff, Employers manager “told me that there is nothing, there is no way thаt he could do anything for me, he said the only thing that I could do was take three days off and get fired.” N.T. at 5. Petitioner argues that Employers managers statement аmounted to a discharge.
An employers language must possess the immediacy and finality of a firing in order for that language to be interpreted as a discharge.
Sweigart v. Umemployment Compensation Board of Review,
Given this test, we cannot conclude that Employers language in this case possessed the immediacy and finality of a discharge. Employers statement of сompany policy did not compel Petitioner to leave his job. Nor did Petitioner wait to find out if Employer would actually fire him when he telephoned the third time to notify Employer of his car troubles before he quit. Where an employee resigns in order to avoid the chance of being fired, that employee is deemed to have voluntarily quit.
Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
*443 Cause of Necessitous and Compelling Nature
Petitioner next contends that if the Board correctly determined that he quit voluntarily, the Board erred in concluding that he lacked cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to leave his employment. Petitioner asserts that his transportation difficulties constituted such cause as to entitle him to benefits under the Law.
Initially, we note that an employee who voluntarily terminates his employment bears the burden of establishing that such termination resulted from cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Latzy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
The employer in
Latzy
offered a furloughed employee a job with alternating shifts at a different location than her prior position. The employee rejected the job offer, alleging transportation difficulties. We affirmed the Boards denial of benefits on the basis that the employee had not shown that she took reasonable steps to overcome those difficulties. In
J.C. Penney,
the employ
*444
er moved the location of its office and then offered its employees from the old office jobs at the new site, but did not provide a pay increase to offset the additional travel expenses. We affirmed the Board s award of benefits in
J.C.
Penney, finding that, the additional commuting distance and unreimbursed expenses аssociated with the travel were excessive and thus constituted cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating employmеnt. Similarly, we reversed the Board s denial of benefits in
Love v. Unemployment Compensation Board of
Review,
In the case before us, Petitioner does not allege that Employer created his transportation problem by changing the location of the job site, by altering Petitioners work hours, or otherwise changing the terms of his employment. Petitioner asserts that his car brokе down and that he needed time to repair it. On these facts, we hold as a matter of law that Petitioner has not established cause of a necessitоus and compelling nature so as to entitle him to benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm.
Order
And Now, January 4, 1989, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-сaptioned matter is affirmed.
Notes
We note that the Board may reverse a referees decision concerning the award of benefits, even if the referees decision is based upon consistent and uncontradicted testimony, when the Board sets forth its reasons for reversal or the reasons for reversal are clear from the record.
Office of Attorney General v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
111 Pa Commonwealth Ct. 187,