Opinion
No. 289 C.D. 2013
08-07-2013
Walter D. Williams, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Walter D. Williams (Claimant) petitions for review, pro se, of the February 15, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming the decision of a referee to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We reverse.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Under section 402(e) of the Law, a claimant is ineligible for benefits for any week in which his or her unemployment is due to discharge from work for willful misconduct.
Claimant worked for the United States Postal Service (Employer) as a part-time carrier. On July 25, 2012, Claimant struck a customer's motorcycle while driving Employer's vehicle. Employer has a policy requiring its employees to report all accidents sustained on the job to their supervisor immediately. Claimant did not report the accident to his supervisor. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-4.)
(See Employer's Policy, at 1.) Employer's Policy also requires an employee to perform his or her duties accurately and "EFFICIENTLY and WITHIN SPECIFIC TIME LIMITS." (Id.) Employees must also "[d]eal with the public in a courteous, prompt, and obliging manner." (Id.)
Claimant did look for and notify the customer of the situation, and provided the customer with the telephone number for the local post office. Claimant made one attempt to contact his supervisor by phone, but it was unsuccessful. Claimant did not attempt to call his supervisor again because of the time it took Claimant to locate the owner of the motorcycle, who lived in an apartment complex, and the amount of mail he still had to deliver that day. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, Nos. 5-7.)
Upon returning to the post office, Claimant looked for his supervisor, but he was not in his office. Claimant was informed that the customer had notified Claimant's supervisor of the incident and that the supervisor was out. The next day Claimant was suspended pending an investigation. On August, 15, 2012, Employer issued Claimant a letter of proposed removal. On October 12, 2012, Employer discharged Claimant for failure to report the accident. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, Nos. 8-11.)
Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits with the local service center, which was granted. Employer appealed this determination to the referee. The referee held a hearing on November 29, 2012, and reversed the local service center's decision, denying Claimant benefits pursuant to section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed. Claimant now petitions this court for review of that decision.
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.
Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in finding that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct by violating Employer's policy without good cause. We agree.
"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). When an employee is discharged for violating a work rule or policy, the employer must prove: (1) the existence of the work rule or policy; (2) the reasonableness of the rule or policy; (3) that the employee knew of the rule or policy; and (4) that the employee willfully violated the rule or policy. Vought v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 504 A.2d 425, 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). "[T]he necessity of proving willfulness is doubly crucial since the rule allegedly violated required deliberate behavior." Id.
If an employer proves a work-rule or policy violation, the burden then shifts to the employee to prove that he or she had good cause for violating the rule or policy. 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, there is no dispute about the existence of a policy or of Claimant's awareness of the policy. Moreover, Claimant admitted that he did not inform his supervisor of the accident.
Thus, our inquiry turns to whether Claimant had good cause for deviating from the policy. The UCBR found that: (1) Claimant admitted that he attempted to, but ultimately did not, report the accident immediately to his supervisor because he had spent too much time looking for the customer in the multi-unit apartment building; (2) Claimant was running late and he needed to finish his route because of the length of time it took Claimant to locate the customer; and (3) upon Claimant's return to the post office, Claimant went to his supervisor's office, but was informed that the supervisor had already heard about the incident from the customer and was out of the office. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, Nos. 4-8.)
"In an unemployment compensation case, the UCBR is the ultimate fact finder and is empowered to make credibility determinations. Questions of credibility and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts are within the discretion of the UCBR and are not subject to re-evaluation on judicial review." Bell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 23, 26 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (citations omitted). --------
We conclude, based upon the UCBR's findings of fact, that Claimant acted justifiably under the circumstances. Claimant did not attempt to hide the accident. Claimant looked for, found, and notified the customer, attempted to call his supervisor, asked the customer to call his supervisor, finished his route (which was also in Employer's best interest), and went to his supervisor's office after finishing his route to report the incident. All of Claimant's actions were reasonable under the circumstances. Therefore, Claimant had good cause for deviating from Employer's policy, and the UCBR erred in denying Claimant UC benefits under section 402(e) of the Law.
Accordingly, we reverse.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2013, we hereby reverse the February 15, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge