COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA


Present:  Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis


MARGARET S. SUITS

v.   Record No. 0227-95-3                    MEMORANDUM OPINION
                                                 PER CURIAM
VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION,               SEPTEMBER 5, 1995
COLONIAL INVESTORS, LP,
AND WAFFLE AND EGG



             FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF RUSSELL COUNTY
                Donald A. McGlothlin, Jr., Judge

           (Martin Wegbreit, Client Centered Legal Services of
           Southwest Virginia, Inc., on briefs), for appellant.

           (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; James W.
           Osborne, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for
           appellee Virginia Employment Commission.

           No brief for appellees Colonial Investors, LP and
           Waffle and Egg.


     The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) denied Margaret S.
Suits' request for unemployment benefits.  On appeal from the
judgment of the circuit court affirming the denial, Suits raises
the following three issues:  (1) whether Suits had good cause to
leave her employment; (2) whether Suits took reasonable steps to
retain her employment; and (3) whether the employer's placement
of Suits at the front grill amounted to a constructive discharge. 
Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude
that this appeal is without merit.  Accordingly, we summarily
affirm the judgment of the trial court.  Rule 5A:27.
               "[W]hen determining whether good cause existed for a
claimant to voluntarily leave employment, the [VEC] and the
reviewing courts must first apply an objective standard to the
reasonableness of the employment dispute and then to the
reasonableness of the employee's efforts to resolve that dispute
before leaving the employment."   Umbarger v. Virginia Employment
Comm'n, 12 Va. App. 431, 435, 404 S.E.2d 380, 383 (1991). 
However, the Courts are governed by the statutory directive that
"the findings of the [VEC] as to the facts, if supported by
evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and
the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of
law."  Code  60.2-625(A).  See Shifflett v. Virginia Employment
Comm'n, 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 (1992).  "The
VEC's findings may be rejected only if, in considering the record
as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a
different conclusion."  Craft v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8
Va. App. 607, 609, 383 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1989).
                               I.
     The record supports the VEC's determination that Suits did
not qualify for unemployment benefits because she did not have
good cause to leave her employment.  Code  60.2-618(1).  Suits
was a new employee of a new business and had worked less than
four and one-half days.  She voluntarily left her employment
"because she felt uncomfortable and stressful" working at the
front grill.  While Suits suffers from high blood pressure, which
is aggravated by stress, "[s]he was not advised by her physician
to quit her job due to her health."    
                               II.
     Moreover, the record supports the VEC's finding that Suits
"did not pursue all reasonable alternatives to resolve the
dispute before leaving her employment."  Suits testified that she
told both owners that she could not work at the front grill, but
she admitted that she never talked to the owners to resolve what
appeared to be conflicting instructions.  She quit in the middle
of her shift, without telling the night manager that she had
problems working at the front grill, and walked out without
informing the night manager.  
                              III.
     Suits also alleges that her employer's decision to assign
her to the front grill amounted to a constructive discharge.  The
evidence does not support this allegation.  The VEC specifically
rejected Suits' contention that the work to which Suits was
assigned had become unsuitable.  Therefore, the evidence does not
demonstrate that her work assignment amounted to a constructive
discharge. 
     Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily
affirmed.

                                                                                                                   Affirmed.