191 Pa. Super. 229 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1959
Opinion by
The Bureau of Employment Security found the appellant eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.
The referee reversed the Bureau and held that the appellant was ineligible to receive benefits under the provisions of section 402(b) of the act. This decision of the referee was affirmed by the Board of Review which held that appellant did not have a compelling and necessitous reason for leaving his job when he voluntarily terminated his employment because he was dissatisfied with the working conditions.
The findings of fact made by the Board of Review, which are based upon competent testimony, are binding upon this Court.
What is the competent testimony in this case?
The appellant’s own testimony given at the referee’s hearing clearly establishes his voluntary leaving his employment: “Q. And your last day of work was Janu
It is the function of the Board of Review to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and to draw reasonable inferences from the testimony: Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 403, 116 A. 2d 271; Davis Unemployment Compensation Case, 187 Pa. Superior Ct. 116, 144 A. 2d 452.
Did the appellant establish any necessitous and compelling reason for voluntarily terminating his employment?
In the Allen Unemployment Compensation Case, 174 Pa. Superior Ct. 514, 102 A. 2d 195, it was held that the termination of the employment must be compelled by necessitous circumstances.
Prom the facts in the testimony we cannot find any circumstances that would show that claimant had a
Tbe findings made by tbe Board were that claimant voluntarily terminated bis employment because he was dissatisfied with bis assignment; that be was not laid off or discharged and that employment was available to him bad be desired to remain on tbe job. Tbe claimant, therefore, is disqualified from receiving benefits under tbe provisions of section 402(b).
Tbe decision of tbe Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.