IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 


James W. Bell, : 
Petitioner : 
: 
v.

Unemployment Compensation : 
Board of Review, : 
Respondent : 


BEFORE: HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge 

 HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge 

HONORABLE JOSEPH F. McCLOSKEY, Senior Judge 

OPINION BY JUDGE FRIEDMAN FILED: February 20, 2007 

James W. Bell (Claimant) petitions for review of the August 23, 2006, 
order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR), which 
affirmed the decision of a referee denying Claimant unemployment compensation 
pursuant to section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We 
affirm. 

Claimant was employed by W.G. Tomko & Sons, Inc. (Employer) as 
a full-time journeyman plumber from August 31, 2002, until his last day of work 
on April 10, 2006. The local job center determined that Claimant was ineligible 
for benefits under section 402(b) of the Law, and Claimant appealed. The referee 
held a hearing to determine whether Claimant’s separation from employment was 
voluntary under section 402(b) of the Law or involuntary under section 402(e) of 
the Law.2 

At the hearing, Claimant testified that, on April 10, 2006, he and his 
supervisor, John J. Mox, argued on the phone twice; Mox blamed Claimant for the 
lack of materials and manpower available to complete a project, and he complained 
that Claimant violated Employer’s protocol by personally receiving a service call 
from one of Employer’s customers. (R.R. at 15a-16a, 19a.) According to 
Claimant, during the second argument, Mox told Claimant that he was not going to 
argue with Claimant anymore and that Claimant should “park his truck” at 
Employer’s service shop. (R.R. at 17a.) Claimant stated that he understood the 
phrase “park his truck” to mean that he was fired. Claimant explained that this 
phrase is an expression often used in the service trade to indicate that a person is 
fired because, generally, service technicians do not leave their trucks at the shop; 
they take them home. (R.R. at 17a-18a.) Claimant also stated that Mox had used 
this phrase to discharge another employee. 

Claimant testified that after being told to “park his truck,” he went 
home, removed his personal belongings from his truck, drove to Employer’s 
service shop and left the truck there. (R.R. at 18a.) Claimant agreed that he did 
not ask Mox whether he was being discharged, but he denied that he quit his 
position. Claimant stated that there would be no reason for Mox to direct Claimant 
to park his truck at the service shop other than to discharge Claimant. (R.R. at 20a21a.) 
Finally, Claimant denied receiving an offer of reemployment from 
Employer. (R.R. at 28a.) 

Claimant also offered the testimony of James Falconio, a 
representative from the local plumbers union, who corroborated Claimant’s 
assertion that the term “park the truck” is an expression often used in the trade to 
discharge an employee. In fact, Falconio testified that when he was discharged 
from a job he was told to “park the truck,” and that this term “absolutely” means 
that a person is fired. (R.R. at 22a.) 

Testifying on behalf of Employer, Mox gave his version of the events 
of April 10, 2006. Mox stated that he argued with Claimant about the timing of 
Claimant’s requests for materials for his current project, and he told Claimant that, 
in the future, Mox would be responsible for determining the materials and 
manpower needed for any particular job. Mox testified that, during the argument, 
Claimant repeatedly asked to be laid off because he and Mox “will never get 
along.”3 (R.R. at 23a.) According to Mox, he told Claimant that he would not lay 
him off because Employer had work for Claimant to do, but he said that “if 
[Claimant did not] like working for me or [Employer], I suggest you put your truck 
out front and go home.” (R.R. at 23a.) Mox maintained that he would not have 
discharged Claimant because he was an excellent technician and because Employer 
had projects for Claimant to complete, but Claimant quit. (R.R. at 23a-24a.) 
Additionally, Mox specifically denied Claimant’s assertion that Mox had used the 
term “park the truck” to discharge another employee and noted that the employee 
in question had been laid off and not discharged. In fact, Mox denied discharging 
anyone before, or using the term “park the truck” before. (R.R. at 27a.) Finally, 
Mox testified that, although he did not personally contact Claimant about returning 
to his position, he told Employer’s owners that Claimant could have his job back. 

(R.R. at 25a-26a.) 
After considering the evidence, the referee resolved the conflicting 
testimony in favor of Employer and found that: (1) Claimant made several requests 
to be laid off, which Mox declined; (2) the language used by Mox to park the truck 
if Claimant did not like working with Mox or Employer, provided Claimant with 
the option to continue his employment and did not possess the immediacy and 
finality of a firing; (3) Claimant did not question whether he was being discharged; 
(4) Mox did not intend to discharge Claimant; (5) Claimant parked his company 
truck in front of Employer’s shop on April 10, 2006, and did not attempt to return 
to work thereafter; and (6) continued work was available for Claimant had he 
returned. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 3-11.) The referee then concluded that Claimant 
voluntarily left his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling 
nature, and, therefore, he was ineligible for benefits under section 402(b) of the 
Law. (Referee’s op. at 2-3.) Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which also resolved 
the conflicts in the testimony in favor of Employer and affirmed and adopted the 
referee’s decision.4 

On appeal to this court,5 Claimant argues that his uncontradicted 
testimony established that he was discharged, and the UCBR erred in concluding 
that Claimant voluntarily resigned his position. We disagree. 

In a voluntary quit case, it is the claimant’s burden to prove that his 
separation from employment is involuntary. Helsel v. Unemployment 
Compensation Board of Review, 421 A.2d 496 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). In order for an 
employer’s actions to constitute a discharge, the claimant must demonstrate that 
the employer’s actions had the immediacy and finality of a “firing,” but the 
employer need not specifically use words such as “fired” or “discharged.” Wise v. 
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 700 A.2d 1071 (Pa. Cmwlth. 
1997); Helsel. Whether a claimant’s separation from employment is voluntary or a 
discharge is a question of law for the court to determine from the totality of the 
record. Iaconelli v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 894 
(Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).6 

Claimant contends that Mox’s repeated threats to discharge Claimant, 
coupled with the “park your truck” language commonly understood in the industry 
to mean that a person is discharged, constitutes a discharge as a matter of law 
under White v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 188 A.2d 759 (Pa. 
Super. 1963). In White, the claimant and the employer got into a heated argument 
during the claimant’s shift that ended with the employer stating “I am the boss and 
she is the boss ([the] employer’s wife) – If you don’t like it, there is the door.” Id. 
at 760. The superior court held that a claimant’s discharge from employment can 
be inferred from such language as “pick up your pay,” “turn in your key,” “pull 
your time card” and “turn in your uniform,” id. at 760, and that, under all the 
circumstances in this record, the words “there is the door” amounted to a 
discharge. Claimant maintains that Mox’s directive to “park your truck” carries 
with it the same immediacy and finality of a discharge as the employer’s statement 
“there is the door” in White and offered him no “real choice” between remaining at 
work or leaving. We point out that the record in White was viewed in the light 
most favorable to the employee as the prevailing party. Moreover, because the 
circumstances are significantly different from those in White, Claimant’s reliance 
on that case is misplaced.7 

Here, in contrast to the situation in White, the credible evidence 
established that: (1) Mox did not intend to discharge Claimant and would not have 
done so because Employer had work for Claimant to complete; (2) despite 
Claimant’s repeated requests to be laid off, Mox refused to lay Claimant off; and 
(3) the language used by Mox provided Claimant with an option to continue his 
employment. Under the totality of the circumstances in this record, we are 
satisfied that the UCBR did not err in concluding that Mox’s statement did not 
carry with it the immediacy and finality of a discharge; rather, Claimant voluntarily 
quit without necessitous and compelling cause.8 

Accordingly, we affirm. 
_____________________________ 
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Judge