Opinion
No. 1673 C.D. 2014
06-25-2015
Charles W. Banks, Jr., Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
Claimant Charles W. Banks, Jr. petitions pro se for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed a referee's denial of benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) (willful misconduct), 43 P.S. § 802(e). On appeal, Claimant appears to challenge the denial of benefits based upon a version of facts rejected by the Board and referee. Inasmuch as the dispositive fact-finding is supported by substantial evidence of record and supports the conclusion that Claimant committed disqualifying willful misconduct, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended.
The findings of fact, which this court must accept on appeal, demonstrate that Claimant, a truck driver, was scheduled to deliver a load on Friday, January 10, 2014, for his employer, G & G Trans LLC. The load was not delivered as required but left in the trailer, parked at Employer's facility. When Employer found the parked trailer on January 10, it attempted to contact Claimant several times during the day, ultimately contacting the police to report the missing tractor stolen. Claimant eventually contacted Employer later in the day on January 10 to inform it that he was in the emergency room due to back pain. Claimant never actually saw a doctor or received any treatment for his back, however, because he left the hospital after one-and-one-half hours. Employer instructed Claimant to return the tractor and paperwork to the office on Saturday, January 11. When Claimant returned to the office, Employer also requested that Claimant turn in his fuel card and truck keys. Claimant turned in his paperwork and fuel card but did not return the truck keys. Because Claimant had the paperwork for the load, Employer could not deliver the load and consequently lost the contract with that client. Employer terminated Claimant for not delivering the load, not reporting to work on January 10, and disappearing with its truck.
In making these findings, the referee specifically discredited Claimant's testimony that he left a message for Employer on January 9 that he could not deliver the load due to a back problem and that he left the paperwork for the load for the Employer. The referee also found that Claimant failed to sufficiently explain his failure to give Employer proper and timely notice of his inability to complete the delivery. The Board adopted the referee's findings and the ultimate conclusion that such conduct constituted willful misconduct, disqualifying Claimant from receiving benefits.
Unfortunately, Claimant has not presented a cognizable issue for review. Specifically, he does not contend that the Board's findings do not support the legal conclusion of willful misconduct, nor does he challenge specific findings as lacking the necessary evidentiary support. At most, in his statement of facts and argument, Claimant sets forth a version of events contrary to those found by the Board. It is well settled, however, that the Board is the fact-finder and may accept the evidence of one party over that offered by the other. Henderson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 77 A.3d 699, 718 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The Board's credibility determinations are binding on appeal and this court cannot reweigh the evidence or disturb those credibility determinations. Id. See also Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). As noted, the Board's findings have ample record support and, therefore, are conclusive on appeal. Moreover, Claimant's conduct requires no lengthy legal discussion; his failure to properly and timely advise Employer that he could not complete his delivery, failure to provide Employer with the paperwork to allow another driver to make the delivery and failure to return Employer's truck, constitutes a wanton and willful disregard of Employer's interests and a disregard of the standards of behavior of which an employer has a right to expect of an employee. See generally Ductmate Indus., 949 A.2d at 343 (defining willful misconduct).
In setting forth the summary of the argument, Claimant states: "The [Board] was in error when it found [that] the [petitioner] engaged in willful misconduct. Claimant feels that he did not adequately explain to the respondent details of operations regarding scope of employment, or claimant was grossly misunderstood." Brief at 8. Thereafter, Claimant argues only that:
Claimant did not engage in willful misconduct of any kind. "Such circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner."
Claimant was not aware of being terminated until after claimant delivered tractor and communicated with [Employer] that claimant would return home to recover from back injury. According to [Employer] he would call claimant the following week to see if claimant was ready to return to work. [Employer] called 3 days later on January 13, 2014 and told claimant he was terminated.
Indeed, it caused Employer to lose that particular contract, clearly a financial loss.
The Board's order is affirmed.
Consequently, the Board's motion to strike the Claimant's brief and dismiss his appeal is denied as moot. --------
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 25th day of June, 2015, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.
Further, the Application for Relief in the Form of a Motion to Strike Claimant's Brief and to Dismiss his Appeal is DENIED as moot.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge
Id. at 9.