Summary
stating that the claimant's disparate treatment argument "would have merit if claimant had alleged that enforcement of the company rules had been based on improper discrimination such as racial bias"
Summary of this case from Geisinger Health Plan v. Unemp. Comp. Bd.Opinion
Argued March 13, 1980
April 2, 1980.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897 — Falsifying time records — Selective enforcement of rules — Discrimination.
1. An employe discharged for punching time cards for fellow employes so that they would be paid for time not worked is properly found to have disregarded acceptable behavior standards and to be guilty of wilful misconduct precluding his receipt of benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act 1936, December 5, P.L. (1937) 2897. [302]
2. Action by an employer discharging an employe who improperly punches time cards for fellow employes and not discharging the employes whose cards were involved is not unreasonable so as to justify the receipt of unemployment compensation benefits by the discharged employe unless such action was the result of improper discrimination. [302]
Argued March 13, 1980, before Judges WILKINSON, JR., MENCER and MacPHAIL, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 556 C.D. 1979, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of James E. Palmer, Jr., No. B-164106-B.
Application to the Bureau of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Denial affirmed. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
David L. Hill, for appellant.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Attorney General, with him Richard Wagner, Chief Counsel, and Edward G. Biester, Jr., Attorney General, for appellee.
Petitioner (claimant) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying benefits due to claimant's willful misconduct 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). We affirm.
Claimant worked as a material handler at Y Y Snacks, Inc. from August, 1975 until May 26, 1978 when his employment was terminated by discharge for punching time cards at times substantially earlier than the employer's normal starting hours for three other employees who were not working at the time. Claimant was actually working at that time and alleged he was acting upon the requests of his co-workers. This practice, which was repeated on several different dates, was in violation of a company rule and resulted in the employer paying out wages at an overtime rate to the employees whose time cards were falsified. Upon his discharge, claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but his application was denied by the Board after a referee's hearing and a remand hearing. This appeal followed.
Claimant's arguments before this Court are two-fold. First, he argues that he had cause to believe that punching other employees' time cards was an acceptable practice. This argument is without merit. At the first hearing, claimant's employer testified that a notice was posted on the bulletin board forbidding such action. Claimant denied having ever seen the notice, but his argument remains unpersuasive because even if he were unaware of his employer's rule, he should have realized that punching time cards for others would be detrimental to his employer's best interest. Such action would defeat the purpose of the time clock system. Clearly, the employer had a right to expect a higher standard of behavior than that exhibited by the claimant. Regardless of claimant's notice of a specific rule, his action of punching time cards for fellow employees may properly be found to constitute such disregard of acceptable standards of behavior as to constitute willful misconduct precluding the receipt of benefits. Schooley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 43 Pa. Commw. 383, 402 A.2d 1109 (1979).
The bona fides of claimant's position in this regard is placed in serious doubt by his first asserting to his employer that he did not punch time cards for others. He later admitted he had.
Claimant's second argument is that the employer did not act reasonably in failing to discharge the other employees for whom claimant punched time cards. This argument would have merit if claimant had alleged that enforcement of the company rules had been based on improper discrimination such as racial bias. See Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867 (1975). In the case at bar there is not sufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion of enforcement of a selective or discriminatory nature. Neither is there sufficient evidence to support claimant's contentions that the other employees involved had supervisory authority over him nor that such alleged authority could justify claimant's acting against the employer's best interest. See Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 11 Pa. Commw. 535, 538, 314 A.2d 528, 529 (1974) wherein Judge ROGERS stated: "An employe owes his employer loyalty, diligence, fidelity, obedience, and, above all, honesty."
Accordingly, we will enter the following
ORDER
AND NOW, April 2, 1980, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision No. B-164106-B, dated February 14, 1979, denying unemployment compensation benefits to James E. Palmer, Jr., is affirmed.