Opinion by
Maxine M. Helsel (Claimant) appeals to this Court from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the decision of a rеferee which denied unemployment compensation benefits to Claimant. The referee, in affirming the determination of the Bureau (now Office) of Emplоyment Security (Bureau), found that Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment without cause of a - necessitous and compelling nature and, therefore, was ineligible to receive benefits under the provisions of Section 402(b)(1) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b) (1). For the reasons which follow, we affirm.
Claimant was employed by Proctor Silex Corporation (Employer) as an assembler at the average rate оf $3.04 per hour from November 15, 1977 until June 16, 1978 at which time she was laid off due to a plant shut down. Claimant’s last day of work was August 7, 1978, the first day of her return to work after she was recalled. On that day Claimant, after a brief assignment to the motor line, was directed to return to her regularly assigned department. Her supervisor then reassigned Claimаnt to work on the Juicit line.
Thе issue presented for our consideration is whether the events described render Claimant’s termination of employment voluntary or involuntary.
This Court’s scope of review in unemployment compensation appeals where the decision below was adverse to the party who bore the burden of proof before the Board, is limited to determining whether the findings of fact are consistent with each other and with the conclusions of law and whether the findings can be sustained withоut a capricious disregard of competent evidence. Sweigart v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
With respect to the severance of an employment relationship, the term “voluntary” has beеn defined by the Superior Court to mean leaving on one’s own motion as opposed to being discharged. Labor and Industry Department v. Unemployment Comрensation Board of Review,
In the instant case, the record reveals that in her summary interview with the Bureau, Claimant wrote that she “did refuse to work on the jusit [sic] line— and when they told me I was to work there or else— I went home. ’ ’ At the hearing before the referee, the following exchange between the referee and Claimant occurred :
QR: You were given the alternative, either do the job; or go home ?
AC: Right.
QR: You were given the alternative, either do the job on the Juicit line or go home?
AC: I said that I won’t work there and that was it____I didn’t say anything else.
This testimony indicates that Claimant left her employment on her own initiative. Other testimony, however, shows some confusion over whether Claimant voluntarily lеft or was discharged. Claimant’s supervisor testified that, “I took her to personnel and I said she resigned or she is terminated.” The Personnel Manager testified that Emрloyer’s policy is that “if
After a thorough review of the record we conclude that, as a matter of law, the Board did not err in finding that Claimant voluntarily terminated her work. We also find substantial evidence in the record to support the referee’s findings of fact which were affirmed by the Board.
Because we have found that Claimant voluntаrily terminated her employment, we must also determine whether she has met her burden of proving a necessitous and compelling reason for the terminatiоn. Bowman, supra. From her testimony it appears that Claimant’s refusal to work was based on the lower wage she believed she would receive while working on the Jureit line аs well as her dissatisfaction with the foreman when he would not assign another worker to the line in Claimant’s place. “It is well settled law that dissatisfaction with wages аnd working assignments does not constitute cause of necessitous and compelling nature for terminating ones [sic] employment.” Happe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
The order of the Unemplоyment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.
Oedeb
And Now, this 22nd day of October, 1980, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision Number B-165989, dated November 20, 1978 is hereby affirmed.
Notes
The record does not contain evidence as to the nature of work required by the assignments given to Claimant. The recоrd does indicate, however, that Claimant had previously worked on the Juicit line.
Although Claimant’s statement of the issue is phrased differently in the brief submitted, it is clear frоm the argument put forth in that brief that a determination as to whether Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment is indeed the ultimate issue for our consideration.
Despite any existing conflicts in Die record, we have found no evidence to support Claimant’s contention that she was coerced into signing the rеsignation slip.
Claimant argues that the Board capriciously disregarded testimony which allegedly demonstrates that continuing employment with Employer was not available to Claimant, contrary to tbe referee’s finding that it was, and that Claimant had no option but to resign. The testimony involved was the following question asked of thе Personnel Manager:
QR: If the claimant, once she got to you, had she said something like, T didn’t realize how serious this was, I’ll do my job’......would you have permitted her to do it?
A: No, not under the circumstances. The remark was made that she wasn’t going to do the job and she made the remark that, she wasn't going to work for (the foreman], .... (Emphasis added.)
We find no fault with the refеree’s finding as to this point. The question posed by the referee was in the form of a hypothetical, but the Personnel Manager’s response was phrased in terms of the actual circumstances of the ease. Those circumstances were that Claimant at no time indicated that she would be willing to work on the Juicit line. Thus, under the circumstances there was no reason to consider the possibility of Claimant’s return to her job. As Claimant stated In her testimony, “I made my mind up I wouldn’t work on the line, on the [,T]uicit line.” Accordingly, we find no capricious disregard, of the evidence.