Slaseman v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Slaseman v. Commonwealth

472 A.2d 276, 80 Pa. Commw. 582, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1250

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 2, 1984

DocketAppeal, No. 1374 C.D. 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 472 A.2d 276 (Slaseman v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Slaseman v. Commonwealth, 472 A.2d 276, 80 Pa. Commw. 582, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1250 (Pa. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Barbieri,

This unemployment compensation ease comes before us on an appeal by Henrietta L. Slaseman (Claimant) from the denial of benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on the ground of ineligibility under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law¹ because her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving her work without cause of a necessitous 'and compelling nature. We will affirm.

The facts are that Claimant’s employer, Colebrook Terry, Inc., closed the plant where she was working in York and offered her employment in the Colebrook plant. The place of employment in York is 19 miles from her home and the place of employment in the Colebrook plant is 39 miles from her home. After test-driving the distance .to ,the Colebrook plant and, on the advice of her husband, Claimant refused employment in Colebrook.

The sole issue in this, case is whether a requirement to drive an additional forty miles per day constitutes, in and of itself, a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment.

We have held that even a sixty mile commute, in and of itself, is not a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment. Musguire v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 415 A.2d 708 (1980). Since Claim[584]*584■ant offered no reason other than dissatisfaction with the additional forty mile commute per day for terminating her employment, and since this reason, under the facts and circumstances of this case, is not legally •sufficient, we will 'affirm. See Churley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324, 410 A.2d 1309 (1980).

Order

Now, March 2, 1984, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-205626, dated May 13, 1982, is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Judge Barbieri,

This unemployment compensation ease comes before us on an appeal by Henrietta L. Slaseman (Claimant) from the denial of benefits by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review on the ground of ineligibility under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law¹ because her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving her work without cause of a necessitous 'and compelling nature. We will affirm.

The facts are that Claimant’s employer, Colebrook Terry, Inc., closed the plant where she was working in York and offered her employment in the Colebrook plant. The place of employment in York is 19 miles from her home and the place of employment in the Colebrook plant is 39 miles from her home. After test-driving the distance .to ,the Colebrook plant and, on the advice of her husband, Claimant refused employment in Colebrook.

The sole issue in this, case is whether a requirement to drive an additional forty miles per day constitutes, in and of itself, a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment.

We have held that even a sixty mile commute, in and of itself, is not a necessitous and compelling reason for terminating employment. Musguire v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 137, 415 A.2d 708 (1980). Since Claim[584]*584■ant offered no reason other than dissatisfaction with the additional forty mile commute per day for terminating her employment, and since this reason, under the facts and circumstances of this case, is not legally •sufficient, we will 'affirm. See Churley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 324, 410 A.2d 1309 (1980).

Order

Now, March 2, 1984, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review at Decision No. B-205626, dated May 13, 1982, is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

472 A.2d 276, 80 Pa. Commw. 582, 1984 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 1250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/slaseman-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack