Opinion
November 2, 1987.
Civil service — Cause of suspension — Awareness of violation.
1. Under the Civil Service Act, Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, disciplinary suspensions of classified employes are proper only when good cause exists relating to the competence and ability of the employe to perform required duties. [610]
2. When no rule exists requiring a prison employe to report infractions unless they are aware of such infraction, good cause does not exist for imposition of a disciplinary suspension upon a classified employe whose personal effects contained contraband of which the employe was unaware. [610-11]
Submitted on briefs June 12, 1987, to President Judge CRUMLISH, JR, Judge DOYLE, and Senior Judge KALISH, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 1238 C.D. 1986, from the order of the State Civil Service Commission, in case of Mark E. Ehnot v. State Correctional Institution at Graterford, Department of Corrections, Appeal No. 6043.
Classified employe suspended by Department of Corrections. Employe appealed to the State Civil Service Commission. Suspension reversed. Department appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
David B. Farney, Assistant Counsel, for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent.
The Department of Corrections (Department) appeals a State Civil Service Commission (Commission) order reversing the Department's five-day suspension of Mark Ehnot from his position as Institutional Music Teacher I. We affirm.
The Department suspended Ehnot, a music teacher at the State Correctional Institution at Graterford, on the charge of "negligently" importing contraband methamphetamine into the Institution. The methamphetamine was found taped to the inside of Ehnot music folder. It was stipulated that the contraband was planted there without Ehnot's knowledge by an inmate with a personal vengeance against Ehnot. Institution officials discovered the contraband when, acting upon a anonymous tip, they searched Ehnot when he reentered the prison on the following day.
Section 803 of the Civil Service Act requires that disciplinary suspensions be for good cause. The alleged "good cause" must relate to one's competence and ability to properly execute job duties. Toland v. State Correctional Institution at Graterford, 95 Pa. Commw. 634, 506 A.2d 504 (1986).
Act of August 5, 1941, P.L. 752, as amended, 71 P. S. § 741.803.
"Good cause" is not defined in the Act, however, the Rules of the Civil Service Commission provide as follows:
(a) Good cause for suspension shall be one of the following:
(1) Insubordination.
(2) Habitual lateness in reporting for work.
(3) Misconduct amounting to violation of law, rule or lawful and reasonable Departmental orders.
(4) Intoxication while on duty.
(5) Conduct either on or off duty which may bring the service of the Commonwealth into disrepute.
(6) Similar substantial reasons.
4 Pa. Code § 101.21.
The Commission concluded that the Department did not have "good cause" for the suspension because Ehnot had no duty to secure his personal effects since he had no knowledge that he was carrying contraband.
The Department contends that it established good cause in that Ehnot neglected his duty to search his personal effects before reentering the prison. We disagree.
Our scope of review in a civil service suspension case is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and whether the Commission's decision is violative of constitutional rights or is contrary to the law. Corley v. Department of Public Welfare, 93 Pa. Commw. 639, 502 A.2d 768 (1985).
The Commission properly concluded that the Department failed to establish that Ehnot had a duty to conduct a self-inspection and, therefore, the suspension was not for good cause. The Department produced no evidence of any rule or regulation imposing such a duty. Indeed, a Corrections Officer Captain testified that he knew of no such rule and stated that Ehnot's duty as a music teacher is only to report security infractions to an officer if he is aware of such violations.
N.T., 1/8/86, p. 32.
N.T., 1/8/86, pp. 25-26.
Because Ehnot's actions do not relate to his competence and ability to perform job duties, they cannot supply the requisite "good cause" for a suspension.
The Commission's order is affirmed.
ORDER
The order of the State Civil Service Commission, No. 6043 dated March 27, 1986, is affirmed.