Opinion
No. 1041 C.D. 2011
01-12-2012
Timothy C. Miller, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge
This case was assigned to the opinion writer prior to January 7, 2012, when Judge Pellegrini became President Judge.
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
Timothy C. Miller (Claimant) petitions for review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that denied his claim for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) (relating to willful misconduct). Claimant contends the Board erred in determining: Claimant knew of work rules requiring him to file accurate reports the day of witnessing an incident involving the use of force on an inmate; Claimant violated the rules; and, Claimant's actions constituted willful misconduct without just cause. Upon review, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).
Claimant worked full-time for the Allegheny County Bureau of Corrections (Employer) as a corrections officer beginning in March 1986. In October 2010, Claimant witnessed another corrections officer use force on an inmate. Specifically, Claimant witnessed a fellow corrections officer strike an inmate 10 to 15 times in the face after putting him in his cell. Claimant was not otherwise involved in the altercation.
As a result of the incident, which resulted in an inmate needing medical attention, Employer asked Claimant to file an incident report, which Claimant did. However, Claimant omitted critical facts in his initial report. Specifically, Claimant reported the incident without stating that he witnessed a corrections officer strike the inmate. At a later date, Claimant informed the Allegheny County Police of the actual facts of the incident.
In November 2010, Employer terminated Claimant's employment for violating its use of force policy and code of ethics. Thereafter, Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, which were initially denied. Claimant appealed.
At a hearing before a referee, Claimant testified on his own behalf, and Employer introduced the testimony of two of Claimant's former superiors. After the hearing, the referee determined Claimant filed a false incident report by omitting material facts regarding what he witnessed. Furthermore, the referee reasoned, regardless of whether Claimant was aware of Employer's use of force policy or code of ethics, Claimant's behavior was clearly contrary to the employer's interest, and inconsistent with Claimant's duties as a corrections officer. Therefore, the referee determined Claimant was ineligible for benefits. Claimant appealed.
On appeal, the Board adopted the referee's findings and affirmed. Additionally, the Board concluded the referee's willful misconduct determination was proper, and furthermore, Claimant did not have good cause for his actions. Bd. Op., 4/27/2011, at 1. Claimant petitions for review.
Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc). Whether a claimant's conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 550 Pa. 115, 703 A.2d 452 (1997). --------
Before this Court, Claimant contends the Board erred in determining he knew the requirements of Employer's use of force policy and code of ethics. Additionally, Claimant asserts the Board erred in determining he violated either work rule. Lastly, Claimant argues his behavior did not constitute willful misconduct, and if it did, he had good cause under the circumstances.
Section 402(e) of the Law provides, "[a]n employe 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 42 P.S. §802(e). "Our Supreme Court defines willful misconduct as behavior that evidences a willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's work rules, or a disregard of the standards of behavior an employer can rightfully expect from its employees." Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 550 Pa. 115, 703 A.2d 452 (1997)).
Willful misconduct may be found without a violation of a work rule where a claimant's behavior exhibits an intentional and substantial disregard of an employer's interests, or a conscious indifference to his duty to the employer. Simonds v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 535 A.2d 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988); MacFarlane v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 317 A.2d 324 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). To that end, a claimant making a knowing falsehood or misrepresentation to his employer concerning his work commits willful misconduct, as such behavior exhibits a willful disregard of the employer's interests and a departure from the standard of behavior an employer can rightfully expect. Diachenko v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 457 A.2d 207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983).
Contrary to Claimant's argument, the Board did not base its decision on a determination that he violated a work rule. Rather, the Board concluded Claimant engaged in willful misconduct by disregarding Employer's interests and the standard of behavior Employer could rightfully expect from Claimant when he filed a false report. See Ductmate Indus., Inc.; Diachenko. Specifically, the Board adopted the referee's determination that Claimant filed a false report by completely omitting the critical fact from his report that he witnessed a corrections officer strike an inmate 10 to 15 times in the face. See Referee's Dec., 2/7/11, Findings of Fact Nos., 2, 4-7. These findings are supported by Claimant's own admission that he witnessed a fellow corrections officer strike an inmate 10 to 15 times, and inaccurately reported the incident by omitting critical facts from his report. Notes of Testimony, 2/3/11, at 7-8, 16-17. Therefore, since Claimant intentionally misrepresented the events he was required to report to Employer, his behavior constituted willful misconduct. See Melomed v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 972 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (lying about one's work constitutes willful misconduct); Simonds (concealing truthful information where employment requires disclosure is willful misconduct).
Moreover, Claimant did not have good cause for his actions. Claimant argues he did not fully disclose what he witnessed because he was under stress, and feared retaliation from his co-workers. However, this Court held in Department of Corrections, SCI-Camp Hill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008), that fear of co-worker retaliation for reporting inmate abuse is not reasonable and does not constitute good cause. Id. at 1017 ("inmate protection is an essential component of a corrections officer's duties ... and a blatant disregard of that essential duty cannot be tolerated"). Furthermore, Claimant's generalized stress and fear do not constitute good cause for filing a false report. See Simonds (stress or fear of possible adversity is not good cause for misrepresenting material information critically relied on by one's employer). Therefore, Claimant's argument is meritless, as his actions constituted willful misconduct, and he did not have just cause under the circumstances.
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of January, 2012, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge