In Flannery v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa. Commw. 64, 557 A.2d 52 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989), the Court declined to apply the VLO proviso where a claimant voluntarily elected to avail herself of an advanced retirement package. Finding that continuing work was available to the claimant if she did not opt for the early retirement package, the Board denied benefits. On appeal, the claimant asserted the Board erred in declining to apply the VLO proviso. Rejecting that argument, we explained: The claimant contends that the employer plan was in essence a layoff plan thus placing his claim within the purview of the VLO proviso. Although the claimant makes a valiant effort to transform the employer's plan into a voluntary layoff plan, the record defies this transposition. The employer testified that this plan was introduced to reduce overhead costs but was purely a voluntary program for those people who wanted to retire. The employer testified further that if the claimant did not choose to exercise this option, things would proceed without any changes; and that the claimant was not facing an imminent layoff or salary cut. ... It is clear from the employer's testimony that the Board's finding that the claimant voluntarily terminated his employment in order to avail himself of an advanced retirement package is supported by the evidence and thus shall not be overturned by this Court. See Sievers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 124 Pa. Commw. 52, 555 A.2d 260 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), aff'd per curiam, 520 Pa. 83, 551 A.2d 1057 (1989). The claimant cites W.R. Grace for the two-prong test necessary to qualify for unemployment benefits under the voluntary layoff option proviso. Since the claimant failed to meet the second prong of the test, i.e., exercise of a voluntary layoff option pursuant to contract or established employer plan, the Board committed no error in failing to find the claimant eligible under this proviso. Id. at 53-54.