Opinion
No. 324 C.D. 2013
12-16-2013
Kenneth Evans, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Kenneth Evans (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the January 30, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming a referee's decision to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) due to his discharge from work for willful misconduct. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." 43 P.S. §802(e).
Claimant, who worked as a truck driver for Delaware Valley Shippers (Employer), applied for UC benefits with the local service center after Employer fired him. The local service center determined that Employer instructed Claimant to pick up a load. Claimant, however, refused to comply because he would have to travel three to four hours in the opposite direction, and he only had one and one-half hours left in his log book. The local service center granted UC benefits, concluding that Claimant had good cause for failing to follow Employer's directive. Employer appealed to the referee, who held a hearing. Claimant was sent notice of the hearing, but Claimant failed to appear. (Referee's Decision, 11/8/12, at 1.) Employer appeared and presented testimony.
The referee changed the captioned employer from Combined Express to Delaware Valley Shippers at Employer's direction.
The referee found that Claimant worked full-time as a truck driver for Employer from May 5, 2012, through July 27, 2012. On or about July 27, 2012, Claimant called Employer from Massachusetts and was told to pick up a trailer in Middletown, New York. Claimant did not pick up the trailer in Middletown, New York, but went directly from Massachusetts to Employer's facility in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. Employer terminated Claimant for failing to pick up the trailer in Middletown as directed. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-6.)
The UCBR adopted and incorporated the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The referee determined that Claimant's conduct amounted to insubordination and that Claimant did not offer any testimony or evidence that would support or justify his decision not to follow Employer's order. Therefore, the referee reversed the decision of the service center and found Claimant ineligible for benefits pursuant to section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed. Claimant now petitions this court for review.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
On appeal, Claimant argues that he did not engage in willful misconduct because he had good cause for violating Employer's directive. We disagree.
"Willful misconduct" is defined as: (1) a wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interest; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of the standards of behavior that an employer rightfully can expect from its employees; or (4) negligence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc). "A work rule violation need not be shown where the behavior standard is obvious, and the employee's conduct is so inimical to the employer's best interests that discharge is a natural result." Tongel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 716, 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).
The employer bears the burden of proving that the discharged employee committed willful misconduct. Oliver, 5 A.3d at 438. The burden then shifts to the employee to prove that he or she had good cause. Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). An employee establishes good cause by showing that his or her conduct was justified or reasonable under the circumstances. Anderson Equipment Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 994 A.2d 1192, 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Here, Employer dispatched Claimant to Middletown, New York, to pick up a new trailer. Rather than follow Employer's instruction, Claimant, without explanation, returned to Employer's facility in Bensalem. The record reflects that Claimant did not advise Employer that he would not be picking up the trailer. Because Claimant failed to follow Employer's directive, the UCBR properly determined that Employer met its burden of proving willful misconduct.
The burden then shifted to Claimant to prove that he had good cause for not following Employer's directive. See Chapman, 20 A.3d at 607. Claimant failed to appear at the referee's hearing, so, Claimant did not present any evidence of good cause. Thus, Claimant failed to meet his burden, and the UCBR did not err in so finding.
We note that Claimant contends before this court that he was "running late" for the referee's hearing. We note that "[i]f a party fails to appear at a scheduled hearing, that party must show good cause for that failure before the [UCBR] will delay the final disposition of the case by remanding for additional hearings. Were it otherwise, there would be no incentive to appear at the initial hearing." McNeill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 510 Pa. 574, 579, 511 A.2d 167, 169 (1986). Further, a claimant's own negligence is not good cause, as a matter of law, for failing to appear at a referee's hearing. Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947, 950 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2013, we hereby affirm the January 30, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge