38 Pa. Commw. 110 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1978
Opinion by
This is an appeal from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which denied unemployment compensation benefits to petitioner (claimant) pursuant to Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)
Claimant was last employed as a security guard assigned by his employer to a client’s place of business in Dunmore, Pennsylvania. On his last day of work, October 22, 1976, claimant received a telephone call from his supervisor who informed him that he was being removed from the Dunmore assignment at the request of the client and that he was being transferred to a new assignment in the vicinity of Mount Pocono, Pennsylvania, located 32 miles away. Claim
*111 Section 402(b) (1) provides in pertinent part ':
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week—
(b) (1) In which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. . . .
The remaining question is whether the transportation difficulties experienced by the claimant in relation to his new assignment were of such a nature and degree as to amount to a necessitous and compelling reason for refusing the new assignment. In Correa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 31 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 13, 17, 374 A.2d 1017, 1020 (1977) we noted:
*113 Transportation inconveniences can amount to such a reason for quitting, hut they must he so serious and unreasonable as to present a virtually insurmountable problem, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant. . . .
In order to make such a showing, we believe that a claimant must demonstrate that he took reasonable steps to remedy or overcome his transportation problem before he severed his employment. (Citation omitted.)
Here, claimant’s own testimony before the referee was that he refused the Mount Pocono assignment before making any attempt to arrange for transportation because he “knew” that his parents would not agree to his using one of the family’s three automobiles. Given such testimony, we must conclude claimant failed to carry his burden of proving reasonable and prudent efforts on his part to maintain the employment relationship.
Accordingly, we will enter the following
Order
And Now, October 11, 1978, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-141219, dated February 25, 1977, is hereby affirmed.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sees., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b) (1).