Opinion
No. 574 C.D. 2014
01-06-2015
North Versailles Public Library, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS
North Versailles Public Library (Employer) petitions this Court for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) holding Karen J. Schmidt-Ramsey (Claimant) not ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, § 402(e), as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work . . . ." 43 P.S. § 802(e).
Claimant was employed by Employer as Assistant Director at the library from May 15, 2008 through July 20, 2013. (Record Item (R. Item) 19, Board's Decision and Order, Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶ 1.) On July 21, 2013, Employer's Board of Directors (Library Board) held a meeting and discharged Claimant from her employment because Employer believed she had cancelled library programs without authorization from the Library Board and thus was insubordinate. (Id., F.F. ¶ 9.)
Claimant filed for unemployment benefits and the Unemployment Compensation Service Center found Claimant not eligible. Claimant appealed and the referee conducted a hearing at which Claimant testified, together with Employer witnesses, including Louise Beswick, a member of the Library Board and Mary Ann Fetsick, President of the Library Board. The referee affirmed the Service Center's determination and held Claimant not eligible for benefits because she was discharged from her employment for willful misconduct in connection with her work. Claimant appealed to the Board, and on March 7, 2014, the Board reversed the referee's determination. Employer timely filed a petition for review appealing the Board's order to this Court.
The certified record reveals the limited testimony of one additional Employer witness, the Library Board Secretary, Sharon Dunbar, who stated simply that she was the individual who telephoned Claimant to notify her that her employment had been terminated. (Record Item 9, Transcript of Testimony at 20.)
To prove willful misconduct, the employer must show: (1) wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, (2) deliberate violation of the employer's rules, (3) disregard of standards of behavior that an employer can rightfully expect from an employee, or (4) negligence that indicates an intentional disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties or obligations. Temple University v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 772 A.2d 416, 418 (Pa. 2001).
Our scope of review of the Board's decision is limited to determining whether errors of law were committed, constitutional rights or agency procedures were violated, and necessary findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Temple University, 772 A.2d at 418 n.1.
Both the referee and the Board found that Claimant was a part-time employee who had been instructed by the Library Board, on June 19, 2013, to work no more than 34 hours per week, due to budgetary constraints. (R. Item 10, Referee's Decision/Order, F.F. ¶ 4; R. Item 19, F.F. ¶ 3.) However, Claimant continued to work additional hours, which were approved and submitted to Employer's payroll service by her immediate supervisor, the library's Director (Library Director). (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶ 7; R. Item 19, F.F. ¶ 4.) On July 2, 2013, the Library Board held a special meeting, attended by Claimant and the Library Director, to remind Claimant to restrict her working hours, as directed by the Library Board. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶ 8-9; R. Item 19, F.F. ¶ 4.) However, Claimant continued to work additional hours beyond the 34 hours per week limit and on July 17, 2013, Claimant and the Library Director each received a written reprimand from the Library Board. The letter to Claimant lists items requiring measurable improvements in the next thirty days, specifically: disrespectful behavior toward the Library Board; lack of cooperation (including keeping within work hours limits and credit card limits); bickering and gossiping in the library; and keeping the work area neat and organized. (R. Item 9, Employer's Exhibit 3; R. Item 10, F.F. ¶ 11; R. Item 19, F.F. ¶ 5.)
Claimant asserted throughout the hearing before the referee that she considered herself to be a full-time employee; she testified that she had been hired in 2005 to work 40 hours per week, and that at a later date, her hours were changed to 37 hours per week. (R. Item 9, Transcript of Testimony (H.T.) at 6, 24, 26.)
The certified record includes a memo from the Library Board President to 'personnel file' written on the date of the meeting, which indicates that Claimant got up and left, and then returned to the meeting, "yelling at the [Library] Board." (R. Item 9, Employer's Exhibit 2.)
The Library Director was also discharged for misconduct on July 21, 2013, at the same time Claimant was discharged from her employment. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶ 21.)
The referee found that on the day after the letter of reprimand was received, Claimant told her immediate supervisor, the Library Director, that she considered herself to have been demoted to a clerk position and that as a clerk, she should not be directing or managing programs as she had done before; the Library Director agreed with Claimant's assertions. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶¶ 13-15.) The referee further found that Claimant then advised a member of the Praise Assembly Church, a church where Claimant was scheduled to conduct a summer reading program that day, that she would not be coming to the program any longer. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶ 16.) The referee found that the Library Director posted a sign on the library's entrance that stated, "All Programs Are Cancelled Due to Reduced Staffing" and that the Library Board was not advised that the Library Director had decided to cancel all library programs. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶¶ 18-20.)
In concluding that Claimant committed an act of willful misconduct, the referee reasoned that there was no competent evidence of record to show that Claimant's belief that she had been reduced to a clerk was reasonable, nor that her job duties had been changed, and neither Claimant nor the Library Director had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that they should cancel all library programs and announce such cancellation to the general public. (R. Item 10, Reasoning.) The referee concluded that Claimant was well aware of what the Library Board desired of her, and failed to show why limiting her hours to 34 per week would make it impossible to continue her job functions. (Id.)
On appeal, the Board found, however, that Claimant did not cancel the library programs. (R. Item 19, F. F. ¶ 7.) The Board concluded that Employer issued several warnings to Claimant about her behavior and maintaining the approved work hours; however, that was not the reason provided for her discharge from employment. (Id., Discussion.) The Board determined that Employer discharged Claimant because she allegedly cancelled library programs without authorization, but failed to provide credible testimony and evidence to support a finding that she had done so. The Board stated:
[Employer] did not present credible testimony or evidence to rebut [Claimant's] credible denial that she cancelled the library programs, and her denial that she yelled at [Library Board] members. In the absence of firsthand testimony, the Board resolves the conflict in favor of [Claimant] and concludes that [Claimant] was not responsible for the cancellation of the library programs.(Id.)
Before this Court, Employer argues, first, that the Board erred when it ignored the referee's credibility determinations, and failed to explain its decision in sufficient detail to permit meaningful appellate review. Further, Employer argues, the Board ignored a chronological report documenting events that led to the termination of Claimant's employment that was offered by Employer as evidence that Claimant cancelled the library's summer reading program. We find Employer's arguments to be without merit.
The Board did not file a brief in this matter.
The report is included in the certified record as an attachment to R. Item 3, Employer's Separation Information. In it, Employer chronicles the series of events that led to Claimant's receipt of the written reprimand and, regarding the alleged insubordinate act that resulted in Claimant's discharge from employment, the report states:
On July 18th, the [Library] Board was informed through Tom Koenig, a member of the Praise Assembly church, that [Claimant] informed the church that the Summer Reading Program had been cancelled. This was the first instance that the Library Board heard of the program being cancelled.
On the morning of July 22nd, a posting found on the door to the library's entrance was brought to the attention of the Library Board. It said that all library programs were cancelled due to reduced staffing....Until that time, the Library Board had not been advised or consulted by [the Library Director] and [Claimant] that they had decided to cancel all the programs.
Here, the testimony of Employer's witnesses before the referee clearly established that Claimant was discharged from employment because Employer believed that she cancelled an outreach summer reading program at the Praise Assembly Church, an act of insubordination. (R. Item 9, H.T. at 7, 9, 17, 19.) Claimant denied that she had done so, and asserted that her immediate supervisor made the decision to cancel all of the library's programs, and directed her not to attend the outreach program. (R. Item 9, H.T. at 21-22, 32.) Nevertheless, and contrary to Employer's argument before this Court, the referee failed to make a credibility determination as to this crucial matter. The referee found only that Claimant had advised a member of the Praise Assembly Church that she would not be coming to the program any longer and the program would no longer go forward; the referee also found that it was the Library Director who posted a sign on the library door indicating that all programs had been cancelled, and that the Library Board had not been advised that the Library Director had decided to cancel all programs. (R. Item 10, F.F. ¶¶ 16-19.) The referee's observation that neither Claimant nor the Library Director had a reasonable basis upon which to believe that they were to cancel all library programs does not constitute a determination that Claimant committed the act of insubordination that resulted in her discharge from employment. Moreover, the chronological evidence that Employer asserts the Board ignored cannot be viewed as competent evidence that Claimant cancelled the summer reading program; the report states only that Claimant informed a member of the Praise Assembly Church that the summer reading program had been cancelled.
Pennsylvania courts have made clear that the Board is the ultimate fact finder and is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. The Board's findings are conclusive and binding on appeal if the record, when examined as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings even if there is other contrary evidence. Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2 A.3d 667, 671-72 (Pa. Cmwlth.), appeal denied, 12 A.3d 753 (Pa. 2010); Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008); Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 776 A.2d 331, 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).
An employer bears the burden of proving that a claimant's unemployment is due to the claimant's willful misconduct. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Here, the Board found credible testimony and evidence that Claimant cancelled the library programs to be lacking, and determined therefore that Employer did not rebut Claimant's credible denial that she cancelled the library programs. The fact that the referee found such evidence does not invalidate the Board's decision. We find no error in the Board's determination.
Accordingly, we affirm the order of the Board.
/s/_________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 6th day of January, 2015, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in this matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
(R. Item 3, Attachment.)