IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
  Lisa Bowen, 
  : : 
  Petitioner 
  : : 
  v. 
  : 
  NO. 1642 C.D. 2001 
  : 
  Unemployment Compensation Board 
  : 
  of Review, 
  : 
  Submitted: November 9, 2001 
  : 
  Respondent 
  : 
  BEFORE: 
  HONORABLE DORIS A. SMITH-RIBNER, Judge 
  HONORABLE JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge 
  HONORABLE JESS S. JIULIANTE, Senior Judge 
  OPINION NOT REPORTED 
  MEMORANDUM OPINION 
  BY SENIOR JUDGE KELLEY 
  FILED: March 13, 2002 

  Lisa Bowen (Claimant) petitions for review from an order of the 
  Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) which vacated the decision 
  of an unemployment compensation referee (referee) and denied benefits.  We affirm. 

  Claimant was employed as a dental hygienist by Dr. Patrick  Adonizio 
  (Employer) for five years until her last day of work on January 17, 2001 when she 
  voluntarily terminated her position with Employer.  Claimant filed an application for 
  unemployment compensation benefits.  By Notice of Determination dated 
  February 12, 2001, Claimant's application for benefits was granted by the Scranton 
  UC Service Center (UC Center) on the basis that Claimant was not ineligible for 
  benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) 
  because she had a necessitous and compelling reason to terminate employment.  On 
  February 28, 2001, Employer appealed the UC Center's Notice of Determination and 
  the matter was heard before a referee.  The referee determined that Employer failed 
  to perfect its appeal of the eligibility issue and dismissed Employer's appeal. 
  Employer appealed the referee's decision to the Board. 

  The Board made the following findings of fact.  The Board found that 
  Claimant had conflicts with Employer in the past where the Employer allegedly 
  raised his voice to Claimant, but she did not terminate her employment for any 
  alleged prior incident.  Finding of Fact (F.F.) 2.  On January 17, 2001, Employer 
  called all of the employees together and confronted Claimant about some comments 
  she had made regarding Employer and another employee.  F.F. 3.  Employer asked if 
  Claimant had a problem with the way Employer treated the other employee because 
  he heard that Claimant accused Employer of showing favoritism toward the other 
  employee.  F.F. 4.  Claimant admitted that she had commented that Employer treated 
  two employees, and one in particular, as "pets".  F.F. 5.  Employer was angry about 
  Claimant's comments, which he perceived as accusations that he had something 
  other than a professional relationship with the other employee.  F.F. 7.  Claimant's 
  comments caused difficulty between Employer and his wife, who was also an 
  employee.  F.F. 8.  Employer advised Claimant that her comments were considered 
  insubordinate and that she owed him and his wife an apology.  F.F. 9.  Employer 
  stated that he could have discharged Claimant but chose not to do so.  F.F. 10. 
  Claimant was embarrassed about being reprimanded in front of the other employees, 
  and became upset.  F.F 11.  Claimant worked for several more hours before 
  informing Employer that she could no longer work there because she was 
  embarrassed.  F.F. 12.  Claimant voluntarily terminated her employment because she 
  was dissatisfied with being reprimanded in front of the other employees.  F.F. 13. 

  The Board further found that the initial Notice of Determination was 
  mailed to Employer at an incorrect address.  F.F. 14.  Employer did not receive the 
  Notice of Determination, and only became aware that Claimant had been granted 
  benefits after speaking to a Department of Labor and Industry (Department) 
  representative on the telephone on February 28, 2001.  F.F. 15.  Employer faxed an 
  appeal to the UC Center on that same date.  F.F. 16.  Employer's appeal  is deemed to 
  be timely filed.  F.F. 17.  Employer did not mail its appeal to the Employer's Charge 
  Unit, as Employer intended to appeal the merits of the eligibility determination. 
  F.F. 18. 

  Based upon these findings, the Board concluded that Employer's appeal 
  is deemed timely filed due to the lack of proper notification.  The Board further 
  concluded that Employer's appeal encompassed an appeal on the merits of the 
  eligibility determination.  The Board concluded that Claimant terminated her 
  employment because she was upset and embarrassed that Employer reprimanded her 
  in front of her co-workers.  The Board concluded that Claimant failed to meet her 
  burden of proving that a necessitous and compelling reason existed for her voluntary 
  termination.  By order dated June 19, 2001, the Board vacated the decision of the 
  referee and denied Claimant benefits. 

  Claimant now petitions for review with this Court.  Claimant has 
  presented the following issues for our review: 

  1.   Did Employer file a proper appeal from the eligibility 
  determination. 
  2.   Was Claimant's termination of her employment with cause 
  of a necessitous and compelling nature. 

  Claimant contends that the Board erred in determining that Employer 
  perfected its appeal from the UC Center's eligibility determination.  We disagree. 
  Under the Law, an employer's appeal from an eligibility determination 
  is separate and distinct from the filing of a request for relief from charges.  First 
  National Bank of Bath v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
  619 A.2d 801, 803 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).  An employer seeking to challenge a 
  determination of eligibility must do so in accordance with the requirements of 
  Section 501(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. 821(e).  Section 501(e) provides: 
	  Unless the claimant or last employer or base-year 
	  employer of the claimant files an appeal with the board, 
	  from the determination contained in any notice required 
	  to be furnished by the department under section five 
	  hundred and one (a), (c) and (d), within fifteen calendar 
	  days after such notice was delivered to him personally, or 
	  was mailed to his last known post office address, and 
	  applies for a hearing, such determination of the 
	  department, with respect to the particular facts set forth 
	  in such notice, shall be final and compensation shall be 
	  paid or denied in accordance therewith. 

  43 P.S. 821(e) (footnote omitted).  An employer "seeking  relief from charges is 
  requesting a tax exemption" under Section  302 of the Law, 43 P.S. 782. 

    First National Bank;  Department of Labor and Industry v. Unemployment 
  Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). 

  The appeal instructions accompanying the Notice of Determination 
  underscore this distinction, providing: 
	  Under Section 501(e) of the Pennsylvania 
	  Unemployment Compensation Law, this determination 
	  becomes final unless an appeal is timely filed.  If you 
	  disagree with this determination and wish to file an 
	  appeal, your appeal must be filed on or before the last 
	  day to appeal shown on this determination. 
	  There are three ways to file an appeal:  by mail or by 
	  FAX to a UC Service Center ... .  Regardless of the 
	  method you choose, your request for appeal must be 
	  include the claimant's name and Social Security Number, 
	  a statement specifically requesting an appeal from this 
	  determination, the reason for filing the appeal, and your 
	  signature. 
	  *** 
	   
	   If you wish to file your appeal by FAX, your 
	  faxed appeal must be received by the close of 
	  business on or before the last day to appeal shown 
	  on this determination.  Please complete Section 1 
	  of the enclosed Petition for Appeal or FAX a letter 
	  of appeal to:  570-562-4872. 
	  CONTRIBUTING BASE YEAR EMPLOYER: This is 
	  not a determination on relief from charges.  However, 
	  this determination may affect a request for relief from 
	  charges. 
	   
	  An appeal to a Claimant's eligibility and a 
	  request of relief from charges  MUST BE FILED 
	  SEPARATELY. 
	   
	   For procedures and time limits for requesting 
	  relief from charges, see Form UC-44FR previously 
	  sent to you with the Claimant's Notice of Financial 
	  Determination or contact the Employers' Charge 
	  Section, 7th Floor, Labor & Industry Building, 
	  7th  & Forster Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17121. 
	  A REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM CHARGES, 
	  WHETHER GRANTED OR NOT, WILL HAVE NO 
	  EFFECT ON THIS DETERMINATION. 
  Certified Record (C.R.)  Item No. 4.  In short, an employer seeking to challenge a 
  Claimant's eligibility determination must do so by filing an appeal, whereas an 
  employer seeking to request relief from charges must do so separately by filing a 
  request for relief.  Strict construction is required.  First National Bank. 
  Herein, Employer did not receive the Notice of Determination as it was 
  sent to an incorrect address, and thus did not have the benefit of the above 
  instructions at his disposal.  Nevertheless, upon learning that Claimant had been 
  granted benefits, Employer immediately faxed a letter to the UC Center.  In the letter, 
  Employer stated: 
	  Please consider this correspondence an appeal to request 
	  relief from charges for the above-mentioned 
	  unemployment claim. 

  While at first glance, Employer's letter appears to be a request for relief from 
  charges, Employer's letter continues: 
	  This employee was not discharged; she quit my employ 
	  with out [sic] good cause attributable to either the 
	  employment or working conditions. 
	  Any additional information will be furnished to the referee 
	  upon request. 
	  The reason this appeal appears untimely is that I never 
	  received a determination of benefits. 
  C.R. Item No. 5.  Employer credibly testified that, with this letter, he intended to 
  appeal the eligibility determination.  Employer's intent is further corroborated by the 
  fact that Employer faxed his appeal to the UC Center, which handles determination 
  appeals, and did not send his appeal to the Employer's Charge Section, which 
  handles requests for relief from charges.  Thus, we conclude that the Board did not 
  err in determining that Employer's appeal sufficiently encompassed an appeal of the 
  eligibility determination. 

  Next,  Claimant contends that the Board erred in concluding that the 
  termination of her employment was without cause of a necessitous and compelling 
  nature. We disagree. 

  A claimant seeking to collect unemployment compensation bears the 
  burden of proving that a voluntary termination of employment was for "cause of a 
  necessitous and compelling nature."  Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. 
  Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 37 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994); 
  Steinberg Vision Associates v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
  624 A.2d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).  A cause of a necessitous and compelling nature 
  is one that results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate 
  employment which is both real and substantial and which would compel a 
  reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner.  Monaco v. 
  Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 523 Pa. 41, 565 A.2d 127 (1989). 
  In establishing that a voluntary termination was reasonable, a claimant 
  "must establish that he acted with ordinary common sense in quitting his job, that 
  he made a reasonable effort to preserve his employment, and that he had no other 
  real choice than to leave his employment."  Stroh-Tillman v. Unemployment 
  Compensation Board of Review, 647 A.2d 660, 662 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).  If a 
  claimant does not take all "necessary and reasonable steps to preserve the 
  employment relationship, he or she has failed to meet the burden of demonstrating 
  necessitous and compelling cause."  PECO Energy Company v. Unemployment 
  Compensation Board of Review, 682 A.2d 58, 61 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996).  Whether or 
  not one has "cause of a necessitous and compelling nature" to quit employment so as 
  to be entitled to collect unemployment compensation benefits is a question of law 
  subject to review by this Court.  Chamoun v. Unemployment Compensation Board 
  of Review, 542 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). 

  In the case before us, Claimant voluntarily terminated her 
  employment after Employer reprimanded her.  Employer reprimanded Claimant 
  because she had accused him of showing favoritism toward another employee. 
  This reprimand was done in front of Claimant's co-workers.  While Claimant 
  testified that Employer yelled and screamed at Claimant, banging on the desk and 
  shouting that the only reason she was there was because of his wife and if it were 
  up to him he would have fired her on the spot, the Board did not credit this 
  testimony and did not find that Employer had engaged in abusive behavior in the 
  reprimand.  The Board found that Employer's reprimand was not unjust as 
  Claimant admitted making the comments about Employer, which Employer 
  perceived as accusations that he had an improper relationship with another employee. 
  Based upon these findings, which are supported by the testimony of 
  Employer, the Board concluded that Claimant terminated her employment because 
  of subjective feelings of embarrassment and that such did not constitute 
  necessitous and compelling reason to terminate employment.  In absence of unjust 
  accusations or abusive conduct, resentment of reprimand does not constitute 
  "necessitous or compelling reason" for resigning from employment for purposes of 
  unemployment compensation.  Sileo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of 
  Review, 419 A.2d 223 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980);  Unemployment Compensation Board 
  of Review v. Ruffel, 336 A.2d 670 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975).  We, therefore, conclude 
  that the Board did not err in finding that Claimant is ineligible for unemployment 
  compensation under Section 402(b) of the Law. 

  Accordingly, the order of the Board is affirmed. 
  _________________________________ 
  JAMES R. KELLEY, Senior Judge