In Renda v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 837 A.2d 685 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), appeal denied, 581 Pa. 686, 863 A.2d 1151 (2004), the Court declined to apply the VLO proviso where claimants accepted early retirement incentive packages. Renda involved consolidated appeals by 63 claimants who were former Verizon employees. The employees, who had an average level of employment in excess of 30 years, were union employees whose employment was governed by collective bargaining agreements that required Verizon to offer early retirement packages to employees prior to layoffs. Verizon offered enhanced income security plans (EISPs) to certain employees, which consisted of a payout of $ 2,200 for each year of completed service up to a maximum of $ 66,000, an expense allowance of up to $ 3,750, and a five-percent increase in pension benefits. After accepting the EISPs, the claimants sought unemployment benefits; the unemployment compensation authorities denied benefits. On appeal, we affirmed. The Court first determined the record supported the fact-finder's determinations that the claimants did not prove necessitous and compelling cause to voluntarily quit because, based on seniority, the claimants faced no imminent threat of termination and, therefore, their fears over job security were speculative. In addition, the record revealed Verizon made continuing work available. The Court also rejected the claimants' assertions that they were entitled to benefits under the VLO proviso, stating: The claimants request this Court overrule Sievers, in which we did not apply the VLO proviso to a claimant who accepted an early retirement incentive package. ... As in Sievers, the VLO proviso is inapplicable here. The referees specifically found the claimants voluntarily terminated their employment to receive the EISP. Claimants did not exercise the option of a voluntary layoff because, as found by the referees, continuing work was available to all the claimants. Because the claimants failed to establish they exercised a voluntary layoff option pursuant to contract or established employer plan, we discern no error from the referees' failure to find the claimants eligible under the VLO proviso. See George; Flannery .... Therefore, we decline to overrule Sievers. Renda, 837 A.2d at 694. The claimant asked the Court to revisit the ruling in Sievers. An en banc panel of this Court declined and--consistent with Sievers, George, and Flannery--agreed that the VLO provision in the law did not apply to the claimant, who voluntarily terminated his employment in response to an offer of an enhanced income security plan for those who chose to leave the company. Renda, 837 A.2d at 694. Rejecting the request, the Court analyzed whether the claimant had a necessitous and compelling reason to quit in order to determine whether he might nonetheless be eligible for benefits. Finding that the claimant was not under any imminent threat of termination when he elected to quit, this Court affirmed the denial of benefits. Id. at 691-93.