Opinion
No. 2011 C.D. 2013
06-12-2014
Michael C. Jackson, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
Michael C. Jackson (Claimant), representing himself, petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that denied his claim for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) (relating to willful misconduct). The Board determined Claimant was ineligible for benefits because he violated Western Express Trucking's (Employer) rule which follows federal regulations governing drivers' hours of service. Claimant asserts he did not violate a rule because he documented his hours according to Employer's instructions. To the extent he violated federal regulations, he contends Employer offered him extra pay to do so to meet a delivery deadline. Claimant also argues the Board's findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Discerning no error below, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).
I. Background
Claimant worked as a full-time over-the-road truck driver for Employer. As part of his job, Claimant was required to record his driving hours. Claimant was also responsible for complying with federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations regarding hours of service. Claimant exceeded the allotted number of hours by driving more than 11 hours within a 14-hour day. See Referee's Decision, 7/18/13, Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 3. He also falsified records of his driving hours to appear as though his hours were within the allotment in accordance with Employer's policy and DOT guidelines. F.F. No. 8. Employer discharged Claimant for violating its hours of service rule by exceeding the allotted number of permissible driving hours. F.F. No. 10.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requires employers and drivers to adhere to rules governing driver fitness, hours of operation, and maintenance requirements. See 49 C.F.R. §§395.1, 395.3.
Claimant applied for UC benefits, which were initially granted. Employer appealed to a referee, who conducted a hearing. Claimant, who was unrepresented, testified on his own behalf in person. Eric Ross, Employer's Corporate Safety Manager (Safety Manager), testified on behalf of Employer by telephone.
Safety Manager testified as to the "hours of service rule" that prohibits driving more than 11 hours in a 14-hour shift. Referee's Hr'g, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 7/17/13, at 12. He testified as to the training Claimant received as part of orientation. During orientation, truck drivers learn about logging their driving hours and about the electronic on-board recorder (EOBR), which records a driver's hours and advises him when he is in violation. Id. Claimant attended this training twice. He also annually signed a policy regarding the safety rules. The policy advises that exceeding allotted driving hours is grounds for termination. Id.
Certified Record, Item No. 11.
Safety Manager testified that, generally, Employer counsels drivers who violate the "hours of service rule," and the driver must repeat training. Claimant received counseling and attended additional training as a result of exceeding the allotted driving hours prior to the discharge incident. N.T. at 13. The month before his discharge, Claimant also signed an acknowledgement agreeing that he would comply with the hours of service rule, and that he would not falsify his driving logs. Safety Manager recalled that the EOBR system recorded 32 violations. In response to the referee's inquiries, Safety Manager also testified he was unaware of any dispatchers requesting drivers to violate the hours of service rule. N.T. at 15.
Claimant acknowledged the hours of service rule; however, he testified Employer did not enforce the rule. He admitted that he signed an acknowledgement in April 2013, but he did not recall what it said. Claimant recalled it pertained to the EOBR machine. N.T. at 19.
Claimant admitted that he altered his log of driving hours because management asked him to do a job that required him to drive more than 11 hours in a 14-hour shift. N.T. at 20-21. He explained he received extra pay as a result of following management's instruction. Claimant admitted he did not use the EOBR system in compliance with his training. N.T. at 22. He also admitted he was aware that his conduct was in violation of DOT laws. N.T. at 24.
Ultimately, the referee reversed the local service center, and she denied Claimant benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. The referee found Safety Manager's testimony credible regarding the hours of service rule and its uniform enforcement. See Referee Decision, 7/18/13, at 2. Further, she discredited Claimant's testimony that a manager instructed Claimant to violate the rule, because he did not identify the manager. Id. Claimant appealed to the Board, requesting a new hearing to present a witness with first-hand knowledge of his contentions.
The Board adopted the referee's findings. In its order affirming the denial of benefits, the Board noted Claimant failed to provide a reason for not presenting the additional witness's testimony at the first hearing. The Board also noted Claimant received warnings prior to his termination. See Bd. Op., 9/23/13, at 1.
Claimant now petitions for review to this Court.
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. Doyle v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 58 A.3d 1288 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). --------
II. Discussion
Claimant argues there is insufficient evidence that he violated Employer's rule. Further, he contends Employer imposed delivery deadlines that required violating the hours of service rule and driving over-sized loads at night. As to good cause, Claimant asserts a management level employee of Employer directed him to exceed his driving hours and falsify his log records accordingly.
A. Willful Misconduct
Willful misconduct is defined by the courts as: (1) wanton and willful disregard of an employer's interests; (2) deliberate violation of rules; (3) disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from an employee; or, (4) negligence showing an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2002). The employer bears the initial burden of establishing a claimant engaged in willful misconduct. Id.
The issue of whether a claimant's conduct constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable by this Court. Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Where, as here, the determination of willful misconduct is based on the violation of a work rule, an employer must establish the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule, the claimant's knowledge of the rule, and its violation. Id. If the employer does so, the burden shifts to the claimant to show good cause for the rule violation. Yost v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
At the outset, we note, Claimant did not challenge any specific findings by the Board. The Board's findings of fact "are conclusive on appeal as long as they are supported by substantial evidence" in the record. Phila. Gas Works v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 654 A.2d 153, 157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Umedman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Further, we "must view the record in a light most favorable to the party which prevailed before the Board, giving that party the benefit of all logical and reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence." Stringent v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 703 A.2d 1084, 1087 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
Here, substantial evidence supports the Board's findings that Claimant violated Employer's work rule without good cause. More particularly, the credited testimony establishes the existence of the hours of service rule. F.F. No. 3. The evidence also establishes the rule is reasonable, because it is in accord with DOT guidelines governing the trucking industry. F.F. No. 2. Claimant knowingly violated the hours of service rule, and falsified his driving logs to appear compliant. F.F. Nos. 8-9. In fact, Claimant admitted to violating the rule, and he admitted that he did not log his hours properly. N.T. at 20-22, 24.
Based on these findings, the Board properly determined that Claimant committed wilful misconduct by knowingly violating the hours of service rule. See Dorman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 1047 C.D. 2012, filed April 18, 2013) (unreported), 2013 WL 3542057 (affirming determination that truck driver committed wilful misconduct for violating hours of service rule and falsifying logs); see generally Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (affirming denial of UC benefits based on violation of work rule); Bullock v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 402 A.2d 734 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (upholding denial of UC benefits based on knowing violation of work rule).
Next, we consider whether Claimant had good cause for violating the rule.
B. Good Cause
Claimant contends he was required to violate the hours of service rule, as well as DOT guidelines, because management asked him to alter his logs and drive extra hours for extra pay. See Pet'r's Br. at 10. However, it is not good cause to falsify time records, even with a supervisor's approval. See Temple Univ. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 772 A.2d 416 (Pa. 2001). More importantly, the Board did not credit Claimant's testimony on this point. The Board is the exclusive fact-finder and arbiter of credibility. Ductmate. Accordingly, we are not permitted to revisit the Board's credibility determinations. Id.
Because there is no credited testimony in support of Claimant's version of events, Claimant fails to establish good cause for his misconduct.
III. Conclusion
Claimant's admissions establish that he knowingly violated Employer's hours of service rule, and falsified his logs in order to avoid discovery.
For these and the foregoing reasons, the Board's order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2014, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge