Opinion
No. 1645 C.D. 2014
06-09-2015
Steven B. Mack, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
Steven B. Mack (Claimant) petitions for review of the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the Referee's determination that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e).
The facts, as found by the Board, are as follows:
1. The claimant was last employed as a full-time warehouse employee by Marmon Keystone Corporation from February 2, 2005, at a final rate of $13.46 and his last day of work was January 17, 2014.
2. The employer had a policy, of which claimant was aware, against acts of violent behavior in the workplace.
3. On January 17, 2014, the warehouse supervisor called the claimant into a conference room to present write-ups about two workplace incidents that week.Board's Decision, August 19, 2014, at 1-2.
4. The supervisor told the claimant that he was being suspended for one day.
5. The claimant threw the papers, lunged across the table at his supervisor, and came face-to-face with him.
6. As he was leaving, the claimant threw the door open and slammed it into the wall.
7. The claimant told his supervisor 'this is not over.'
8. On January 17, 2014, the claimant was discharged for workplace violence.
DISCUSSION:
....
The employer has a policy against violent behavior, including threatening bodily harm on others. The Board credits the testimony of the employer and its witness that when the claimant was being reprimanded for his prior workplace actions he became upset. The claimant launched himself at his supervisor in a violent manner coming face-to-face with him. The claimant then slammed the conference room door as he opened it and told his supervisor 'this is not over,' in a threatening manner. These actions are a display of violent behavior toward a supervisor and violated employer's policy. Moreover, it showed a disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee. The claimant's testimony providing reasons for his behavior in the two incidents earlier in the week did not establish good cause for the final incident.
Essentially, Claimant contends that the Board erred when it affirmed the Referee's denial of benefits because there was not substantial evidence to determine that Claimant committed willful misconduct.
This Court's review in an unemployment compensation case is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
In his Statement of Questions Involved, Claimant listed the following issues:
1. Whether respondent [the Board] erred in reversing and denying unemployment benefits to plaintiff [Claimant] after unlawful termination of employment based on 'he said- she said' statements instead of thorough investigation of the facts of the case?
....
2. Whether respondent [the Board] erred in reversing and denying unemployment benefits based upon facts that were discriminatory and unlawful in nature?
....
Whether a claimant's conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a question of law subject to this Court's review. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). Willful misconduct is defined as conduct that represents a wanton and willful disregard of standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from the employee, or negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional and substantial disregard for the employer's interest or employee's duties and obligations. Frick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 375 A.2d 879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). The employer bears the burden of proving that it discharged an employee for willful misconduct. City of Beaver Falls v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 441 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982). The employer bears the burden of proving the existence of the work rule and its violation. Once the employer establishes that, the burden then shifts to the claimant to prove that the violation was for good cause. Park v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985).
In the present case, Bob Cutshaw (Mr. Cutshaw), Warehouse Supervisor for Marmon Keystone Corporation (Employer), testified on behalf of Employer that he discharged Claimant for workplace violence. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), April 21, 2014, at 5. Mr. Cutshaw gave Claimant two write-ups and informed Claimant he was to be suspended for one day. N.T. at 7. In one incident, Claimant allegedly "gave a truck driver the finger" in Employer's parking lot. N.T. at 6. Claimant did not sign the write-ups, pushed the papers across the table, and lunged towards Mr. Cutshaw. N.T. at 8. Claimant grabbed the door to the conference room then slammed it into the wall. N.T. at 8. Mr. Cutshaw felt physically threatened by Claimant. N.T. at 8. Employer has a policy against workplace violence and Claimant signed the employee handbook acknowledgement. N.T. at 9.
Claimant denied that he exhibited violent behavior against Mr. Cutshaw.
I got up, and I tried to tell him what had happened [regarding the incident with the truck driver]. He didn't want to hear a word I had to say. I turned around and walked- - and like, the door, it has a one-handle thing where you turn it down. And I was upset, and I almost ran into it face first. And, so, I had to, you know- - and it wouldn't open. I didn't slam the door. It opened kind of hard because I almost slammed into it with my face. And
I walked out, and he said something to me, and I turned around. I wasn't sure what he said. Of course, I was glaring at him, but I wasn't nose-to-nose with him.N.T. at 11.
Claimant also testified that he received Employer's rules and regulations but "probably [did] not" read it because he knows what an "Employer expects and what he doesn't expect of me." N.T. at 12-13.
In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate fact-finding body empowered to resolve conflicts in evidence, to determine the credibility of witnesses, and to determine the weight to be accorded evidence. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright, 347 A.2d 328 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975). Findings of fact are conclusive upon review provided that the record, taken as a whole, provides substantial evidence to support the findings. Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa. 1977).
Here, the Board found Employer's witness credible and determined that Claimant's "actions are a display of violent behavior toward a supervisor and violated employer's policy...[t]he claimant's testimony providing reasons for his behavior in the two incidents earlier in the week did not establish good cause for the final incident." Board's Decision at 2. The findings of fact challenged by Claimant are supported by substantial evidence. Employer established that it had a rule, that Claimant was aware of that rule, and that Claimant violated that rule. Finally, Claimant failed to provide good cause for violating the rule.
Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of June, 2015, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge
Claimant's Brief, Statement of Questions Involved at 6.