Summary
holding that sleeping, or dozing, on job constituted willful misconduct even in the absence of a written employment rule prohibiting it
Summary of this case from Milliner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
Argued: March 4, 1982
April 14, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Burden of proof — Scope of appellate review — Willful misconduct — Sleeping — Good cause.
1. In an unemployment compensation case, when the party with the burden of proof prevails before the compensation authorities, the scope of review of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania is limited to legal questions and a determination of whether the findings of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review are supported by substantial evidence. [118]
2. Willful misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes is an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of the behavioral standards which the employer has a right to expect of an employee, or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. [118-19]
3. Sleeping on the job is prima facie an act of willful misconduct for unemployment compensation purposes; only if there is justifiable or reasonable cause under the circumstances would the willful misconduct taint be purged, but the burden of establishing good cause is on the employee. [119]
4. Witnesses' credibility and the weight to be accorded their testimony is for the unemployment compensation authorities to determine; the authorities may reject any competent testimony, even if uncontradicted, and their fact findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive on appeal. [119]
Argued: March 4, 1982, before President Judge CRUMLISH, JR. and Judges ROGERS and BLATT, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1091 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the case of In Re: Claim of James Biggs, No. B-194027.
Application to the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Appeal denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Germaine Ingrim, for petitioner.
John Kupchinsky, Associate Counsel, with him Steven J. Neary, Associate Counsel, and Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
James Biggs appeals from an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) order denying benefits. We affirm.
Biggs was found sleeping on the job by his foreman and was discharged. Biggs' excuse was illness, although he had failed to so advise his supervisors. The employer had no specific rules regarding sleeping on the job. The Board affirmed the referee's holding of the willful misconduct.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937), as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e), provides that an employee shall be ineligible for benefits for any work week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . for willful misconduct connected with his work."
Where the burdened party prevailed below, our scope of review is limited to legal questions and a determination of whether or not the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Maxwell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 604, 605, 423 A.2d 430, 431 (1980).
The burden of proving willful misconduct is on the employer, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 Pa. Commonwealth Ct, 10, 11, 422 A.2d 905, 906 (1980).
Willful misconduct, we have said, is an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of the behavioral standards which the employer has a right to expect of an employee, or negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. Sisack v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 54 Pa. Commw. 366, 367 n. 1, 421 A.2d 512 n. 1 (1980); and sleeping on the job "is prima facie an act of willful misconduct, for it falls within either 'wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interest,' or 'disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect.' " Regland v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 Pa. Commw. 48, 50, 428 A.2d 1019, 1020 (1981). Only if there is justifiable or reasonable cause under the circumstances would the willful misconduct taint be purged. See McLean v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 476 Pa. 617, 620, 383 A.2d 533, 535 (1978). The burden, however, of establishing good cause is on the employee. Holomshek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 39 Pa. Commw. 503, 505, 395 A.2d 708, 709 (1979).
Both the Board and the referee here were unpersuaded by Biggs' testimony that his dozing was justified. The witnesses' credibility and the weight to be accorded to their testimony is for the unemployment compensation authorities to determine. Caterina v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commw. 19, 21, 401 A.2d 852, 853 (1979). The authorities may reject any competent testimony, even if uncontradicted, Stockdill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 28 Pa. Commw. 516, 520, 368 A.2d 1341, 1343 (1977), and their fact findings, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive on appeal. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977).
We also reject Biggs' contention that, the employer not having an established rule against sleeping on the job and this being his first peccadillo, his behavior did not amount to willful misconduct.
An employer need not have an established rule where the behavioral standard is obvious and the employee's conduct is so inimical to the employer's best interests that discharge is a natural result. See Spare v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 60 Pa. Commw. 570, 574, 432 A.2d 283, 285 (1981).
In Jones v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 30 Pa. Commw. 301, 304, 373 A.2d 791, 792 (1977), we held that a single incident of misconduct may support a denial of benefits.
Affirmed.
ORDER
The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-81-1-R-58, dated April 2, 1982, is affirmed.
AMENDING ORDER
AND NOW, April 19, 1982, the Order dated April 14, 1982, in the above captioned case is hereby amended to read as follows:
The decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, No. B-81-1-R-58, dated April 2, 1981, is affirmed.