Opinion
No. 495 C.D. 2013
09-30-2013
PPL Susquehanna, LLC, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
PPL Susquehanna, LLC (Employer) petitions for review of the Order of the Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the Decision of the UC Referee (Referee) finding that Robert T. Peternel (Claimant) was not disqualified from receiving UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the UC Law (Law). On appeal, Employer argues that the Board's finding that Claimant did not falsify time records is not supported by substantial evidence; therefore, the Board erred when it found Claimant did not commit willful misconduct. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e) (providing, in relevant part, that an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for any week the employee's unemployment is due to willful misconduct connected with the employee's work).
Claimant was employed by Employer as a maintenance production foreman from April 2010 until his termination on July 27, 2012. (Referee Decision, Findings of Facts (FOF) ¶ 1.) Claimant filed an internet application for UC benefits stating that he was discharged for falsifying time records. (Internet Initial Claims, R. at 2.) The UC Service Center determined that Claimant denied any wrongdoing and that Employer did not provide information to establish that Claimant committed willful misconduct. (Notice of Determination, R. at 5.) Accordingly, the UC Service Center deemed Claimant eligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Law.
Employer appealed and a hearing ensued before the Referee. Employer presented the testimony of its Assistant Maintenance Manager and Senior HR Consultant. Claimant testified on his own behalf. Based on the evidence presented, the Referee found that: (1) "[t]he claimant was discharged by the employer for allegedly falsifying time records;" and (2) "[t]he claimant did not falsify time records." (FOF ¶¶ 2-3.) The Referee concluded that, "[b]ased upon the competent and credible evidence in the record[,]" Employer did not prove that Claimant had "in fact falsified time records." (Referee Decision at 2.) As such, the Referee stated that he could not conclude that "[C]laimant was discharged for willful misconduct in connection with his work under Section 402(e) of the [L]aw." (Referee Decision at 2.) Therefore, the Referee determined that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits.
Employer appealed to the Board. Upon review, the Board found the testimony and evidence presented by Claimant credible, adopted the Referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, and affirmed the Referee's Decision. Employer now petitions this Court for review of the Board's Order.
Our "review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record." The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331, 334 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
On appeal, Employer argues that the Board's finding that Claimant did not falsify time records is not supported by substantial evidence. Employer contends that the Board ignored overwhelming evidence in favor of a contrary finding. Citing to its witnesses' testimony, Employer asserts that the evidence shows that: Claimant was required to notify his supervisor of his whereabouts on any given work day; Claimant logged more than eighty-eight hours over a four month span during which time he was not performing services for Employer; and Claimant's explanations as to what he was doing during this time were investigated by Employer and determined to be false. Employer contends that Claimant's actions were a violation of its policy that requires employees to maintain and complete accurate records of all business transactions.
As noted above, under Section 402(e) of the Law, an employee is not eligible for UC benefits when his "unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." 43 P.S. § 802(e). This Court has defined willful misconduct as:
(1) a wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; (2) a deliberate violation of an employer's rules; (3) a disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations.Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965, 968 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). The falsification of an employer's records constitutes willful misconduct. Diachenko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 457 A.2d 207, 208 (Pa. Cmwlth 1983). "[A]n employee's dishonesty constitutes a disregard of expected standards of behavior only where the employee's actions are affirmatively deceptive." Groover v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 579 A.2d 1017, 1019-20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). The employer has the burden to establish that a claimant's actions constituted willful misconduct. Weingard v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 26 A.3d 571, 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
In UC cases, it is axiomatic that the Board's findings of fact "are conclusive on appeal so long as the record, taken as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings." Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 474 Pa. 351, 355, 378 A.2d 829, 831 (1977). Substantial evidence has been "defined as such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Philadelphia Gas Works v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 153, 157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). This Court's "duty is to examine the testimony in the light most favorable to the party in whose favor the Board has found, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony, to see if substantial evidence for the Board's conclusion exists." Taylor, 474 Pa. at 355, 378 A.2d at 831.
Here, Employer's Senior HR Consultant testified that salaried employees, such as Claimant, are not required to punch in and out on a time clock but, instead, enter their time into a computerized time system and that Employer expected its employees to be present on the job location for 40 hours per week. (Hr'g Tr. at 6, R.R. at 102a.) Employer's Assistant Maintenance Manager testified that Claimant's primary work area was in a secure area of the plant, but that Claimant frequently worked in Employer's Learning Center, which was located in an area of the plant away from Claimant's primary work area. (Hr'g Tr. at 14-15, R.R. at 110a-11a.) The Assistant Manager explained that employees enter the secure area of the plant via a badge that electronically time stamps access, but because the Learning Center was located in a sub-area within the secure area of the plant, employees entering that area did not have to swipe their badges in order to gain access. (Hr'g Tr. at 16-17, R.R. at 112a-13a.) When the Assistant Maintenance Manager became Claimant's supervisor, he notified Claimant that he was required to be at his work location from 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and to notify the Assistant Maintenance Manager if he was working at an alternate work location, such as the Learning Center. (Hr'g Tr. at 9, R.R. at 105a.) When Claimant failed to follow this directive, Employer initiated a corporate investigation into Claimant's whereabouts for the period beginning March 2012 until July 2012. (Hr'g Tr. at 10, R.R. at 106a.) The Assistant Maintenance Manager testified that the investigation showed a disparity in Claimant's time reporting records and that there was over one hundred unaccounted hours; however, the Senior HR Consultant testified that the one hundred hours was reduced to eighty-eight hours as a result of the investigation. (Hr'g Tr. at 10, 14, 24, R.R. at 106a, 110a, 120a.) Importantly, when asked whether he had any documentation showing the missing hours in Employer's system, the Assistant Maintenance Manager testified that he did not have the documentation with him at the hearing; therefore, no documentation to support Employer's statements that Claimant's time was missing from the system was entered into evidence. (Hr'g Tr. at 14, R.R. at 110a.) The Referee did admit into evidence, over Claimant's objection, an excel spreadsheet prepared by the Assistant Maintenance Manager and Senior HR Consultant that the Senior HR Consultant testified was used as an aid to try to account for Claimant's whereabouts. (Hr'g Tr. at 35, R.R. at 131a.)
Claimant explained that he entered his time into Employer's computerized time system every week and he was never informed that he was not following the proper procedure. (Hr'g Tr. 30-32, R.R. at 126a-28a.) Claimant explained further that he frequently worked in Employer's Learning Center, where employees did not have to pass through security; therefore, there was no record of when employees entered or left that area. (Hr'g Tr. at 32-34, R.R. at 128a-30a.) Claimant testified that he informed Employer that he spent a lot of time in the Learning Center and that he gave Employer several names of people with whom he had meetings with there. (Hr'g Tr. at 35, R.R. at 131a.) Claimant specifically testified that he never intentionally or mistakenly falsified his time records and that he was not aware that his time records were ever incorrect. (Hr'g Tr. at 35, R.R. at 131a.)
The Assistant Maintenance Manager testified that he did not know why four months elapsed before Claimant was approached for an explanation about the unaccounted for time. (Hr'g Tr. at 20, R.R. at 116a.) The Senior HR Consultant testified that during those four months, she and the Assistant Maintenance Manager were investigating and trying to account for Claimant's whereabouts before bringing the problem to Claimant's attention. (Hr'g Tr. at 26, R.R. at 122a.) --------
"The evidence presented at the hearing was conflicting; it is not this [C]ourt's function to balance that evidence. Questions of credibility and the resolution of evidentiary conflicts are within the sound discretion of the Board, and are not subject to re-evaluation on judicial review." Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 405 A.2d 1034, 1036 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
This is a classic case of two sides presenting divergent testimony concerning a particular event. The fact that conflicting evidence is presented does not mean that there is no substantial evidence to support the eventual finding since it is the function of the Board, and not this Court, to resolve questions of credibility and conflicts in testimony.Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 387 A.2d 998, 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978). Moreover, as the prevailing party below, Claimant "is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence." Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). That Employer here might view the facts differently does not create grounds for reversal if the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106, 1108-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
Although Employer, in its brief, generally argues that there is overwhelming evidence that Claimant falsified his time records, the evidence cited is only Employer's preferred version of the facts in which the testimony it presented was credited. However, as was its prerogative, the Board credited Claimant's testimony that he never falsified his time records. Therefore, the Board's finding in this regard is supported by substantial evidence. As such, we cannot conclude that the Board erred by finding that Claimant did not commit willful misconduct.
Accordingly, the Board's Order is affirmed.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, September 30, 2013, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review entered in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge