IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Eileen C. Barron, :
Petitioner :
:
v. : No. 2679 C.D. 2003
: Submitted: May 14, 2004
Unemployment Compensation :
Board of Review, :
Respondent :
BEFORE: HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge
HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge
HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: June 18, 2004
Eileen C. Barron (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the November 19, 2003, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), which denied Claimant unemployment compensation benefits under section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.
Claimant worked as a laundry worker for Split Rock Lodge (Employer) from January 24, 2003, until July 18, 2003. (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, No. 1.) On July 24, 2003, John Ziminsky (Ziminsky), Employer’s personnel director, scheduled a meeting with Claimant and a coworker to resolve a dispute. Claimant, however, became agitated while waiting for the coworker to arrive at the meeting and informed Ziminsky that she quit and that he could "take this job and shove it." (UCBR’s Findings of Fact, Nos. 7-8.) Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the job center, which concluded that Claimant voluntarily quit her job without necessitous and compelling reason.
Claimant appealed, and a hearing was held before a referee.
At the hearing, Claimant testified on direct examination that Ziminsky met with Claimant and informed her that a male coworker had lodged a complaint against her, alleging that Claimant had attempted to pull down his pants. Claimant stated that she offered her version of the incident to Ziminsky, explaining that she only tugged on the coworker’s shirt and said "good morning." (N.T. at 2.) According to Claimant, after Ziminsky informed Claimant that he was going to bring the coworker into the meeting, Claimant voluntarily walked off the job because she did not want to face the coworker out of concern for her own safety and sanity. (N.T. at 5-6.)
Testifying on behalf of Employer,2 Ziminsky confirmed that he met with Claimant concerning the allegations against her. Ziminsky stated that he asked Claimant if she would be comfortable with the coworker present to explain his side of the incident, and Claimant initially agreed; however, before the coworker arrived, Claimant became agitated, used profanity and stated that she should quit. Claimant tugged on Ziminsky’s shirt and asked "is this harassment"; then Claimant told Ziminsky that he could "shove this job up... [his] ass." (N.T. at 7.)
The referee concluded that Claimant voluntarily quit her job without provocation and, thus, was ineligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed. Claimant now petitions for review of the UCBR’s order denying benefits, alleging that she was denied due process, equal protection and the right to confront adverse witnesses. Specifically, Claimant contends that: (1) the hearing before the referee was "fatally defective and technically deficient" because she did not have the opportunity to confront and cross-examine her accuser; and (2) the referee’s and UCBR’s decision was based upon hearsay evidence because her accuser did not testify. (Pet.’s brief at 9.) We reject Claimant’s arguments.
It is axiomatic that administrative hearings must comport with basic notions of due process. Knox v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 317 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). A careful review of the record, however, reveals that the referee advised both parties of their rights during the hearing and that Claimant had every opportunity to question Employer’s witnesses about the circumstances surrounding her decision to voluntarily terminate employment. Although Employer did not present the testimony of Claimant’s coworker during the hearing, such testimony is irrelevant to the issue of whether Claimant had
Based on the record before us, we can conclude that Claimant became agitated by the coworker’s accusation and, in leaving the meeting with Employer the coworker arrived, made a conscientious decision to leave her job rather than resolve the situation. necessitous and compelling reason to terminate employment.3 Claimant did not offer any evidence to support her claim that her safety was in jeopardy during the meeting or that her work conditions were intolerable.4before
Accordingly, we affirm.
_____________________________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge