Opinion
No. 2317 C.D. 2011
07-27-2012
Jeffrey S. Schenck, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Jeffrey S. Schenck (Claimant) petitions for review of an Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed an Unemployment Compensation (UC) Referee's (Referee) decision finding Claimant ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). The Board determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits because he engaged in willful misconduct by violating a work rule prohibiting the forgery of an official document. On appeal, Claimant argues that he did not deliberately violate Curtis Bay Energy Northeast's (Employer) work rule and, alternatively, that the Board erred in determining that he failed to establish good cause for doing so. Claimant also argues that the Board erred in determining that he should have known that his forgery was inimical to Employer's interests. For the following reasons, we affirm the Order of the Board.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) provides that a claimant is ineligible for benefits for any week in which his unemployment is due to his willful misconduct connected with his work.
Claimant worked as an Operations Manager for Employer between November 27, 2007, and May 31, 2011. Employer dismissed Claimant for forging a signature on an official document in violation of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations and Employer's rule. After Employer dismissed him, Claimant applied for UC benefits. The UC Service Center (Service Center) determined that he was ineligible for benefits, and Claimant appealed. The Referee conducted an evidentiary hearing on August 18, 2011. Claimant, Employer's Regional Manager, Employer's Operations Manager, Employer's Transporter, and Employer's Operations Assistant testified. Based on the parties' testimony and the submitted evidence, the Referee made the following findings of fact:
1. The claimant worked for Curtis Bay Energy Northeast from November 27, 2007 until May 31, 2011 as an operations manager. His final yearly salary was $45,000.00.
2. The employer was bound by [DEP] Policies and Regulations and could be fined if these Policies or Regulations were violated.
3. There is a DEP Regulation which requires that employers must obtain on the manifest: the date of delivery, the printed or typed name, and handwritten signature of the owner or operator of the designated facility.
4. The employer made the claimant aware of the DEP Regulations.
5. The claimant was informed that violation of these Regulations could result in discipline up to and including termination.(Referee Decision, Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶¶ 1 - 14.) The Referee concluded that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct because his forgery violated an understood work rule and his conduct was clearly inimical to Employer's interests. Accordingly, the Referee affirmed the Service Center's denial of benefits. The Board affirmed the Referee's decision and incorporated his findings and conclusions in their entirety. Claimant now petitions this Court for review.
6. In his position with this employer, the claimant supervised truck drivers. He also spent approximately fifty percent of his work time as a driver.
7. On May 23, 2011, the claimant made a waste pick-up at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia-Abramson Research Building.
8. After the pick-up, the claimant returned to the employer['s] location in Leesport, Pennsylvania, and noticed that the generator's name on the manifest document was incorrect, as prepared by the employer.
9. The generator's name [on the manifest] should have [been] Children's Hospital of Philadelphia-Abramson Research Building, however [it] stated Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
10. As a result of this discovery, the claimant ripped up the original manifest document and prepared a replacement document with the correct generator's name.
11. As part of the replacement document, the claimant forged the name of the individual with Children's Hospital, who had signed the original manifest document.
12. The claimant then asked another driver [(Co-worker)], who was going to be making a pick-up at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in the very near future, to take the forged document along and use it to replace the copy that had previously been given to Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
13. The claimant's actions could have resulted in the employer being fined by DEP.
14. After conducting an investigation, the employer discharged the claimant on June 1, 2011. The reason given to the claimant for the discharge was that he forged a signature on a legal document, which was in violation of DEP Regulations and could have resulted in the employer being fined.
In an appeal of UC decisions, our review "is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were violated, errors of law were committed, or finding of essential facts [are] not supported by substantial evidence." Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 695, 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). --------
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred as a matter of law when it found that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct when he forged another person's signature on an official Employer document. Claimant asserts that his conduct did not constitute willful misconduct because he did not deliberately violate Employer's work rule or act inimically to Employer's interests. In the alternative, he argues that the Board erred in concluding that he did not establish good cause for violating this rule.
Section 402(e) of the Law states that a claimant seeking benefits is ineligible for unemployment compensation if "his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." 43 P.S. § 802(e). The Supreme Court has defined "willful misconduct" as: "a) wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; b) deliberate violation of an employer's rules; c) disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or d) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 550 Pa. 115, 123, 703 A.2d 452, 456 (1997). Claimant's arguments lead us to review whether his actions constituted willful misconduct under the first or second definitions of that term.
When an employer alleges that it dismissed a claimant for behavior amounting to willful misconduct, the employer bears the initial burden of proof. Department of Corrections v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 1011, 1015 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Where an employer claims that a claimant engaged in willful misconduct by violating a known work rule, the employer must show that: (1) a reasonable rule existed; (2) that the employee was made aware of the rule; and (3) that the employee violated the rule. Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). An employer is not required to show that a claimant possessed intent to defraud or that a claimant's actions caused a specific detriment to his employer in order to show willful misconduct. Rossi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 544 Pa. 261, 267, 676 A.2d 194, 198 (1996). An employer may also satisfy its burden by showing that the claimant acted with "willful disregard of the employer's interests." Id. Whether a claimant's actions constitute "willful misconduct is a question of law that this Court may fully review." Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 967 A.2d 1042, 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). If an employer satisfies its burden of proof, the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate good cause for his actions. Glenn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 1169, 1172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Generally, a claimant may establish good cause by showing that his conduct was "justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances." Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the Board correctly held that Employer met its burden of proof that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct. Employer's Regional Manager testified that DEP regulations prohibited the forgery of manifests. (Hr'g Tr. at 7, R.R. at R-9.) Because Employer was subject to this DEP regulation, the Regional Manager stated that Employer's workers, including Claimant, knew they were required to comply with such DEP regulations. (Hr'g Tr. at 7, R.R. at R-9.) Claimant himself testified that he was aware for years that he was not permitted to forge a signature on a manifest or any other DEP document. (Hr'g Tr. at 34, R.R. at R-36.) Additionally, Claimant understood that Employer would face repercussions if the DEP detected a forgery. (Hr'g Tr. at 34, R.R. at R-36.) Despite this, he signed the facility operator's name on the manifest. (Hr'g Tr. at 30, R.R. at R-32.) Based on this testimony, Claimant's forgery of the facility operator's signature violated Employer's work rule and was inimical to Employer's interests. Claimant's actions, thus, constituted willful misconduct.
Claimant first argues that his forgery does not constitute willful misconduct because he did not act intending to deceive or harm Employer. Here, the Board found that Claimant forged, i.e., "to make or imitate falsely," a signature on an official document despite knowing that Employer prohibited this conduct. Webster's New International Dictionary 891 (3d ed. 2002). Because Claimant intentionally signed the name of another person on an official form, the Board could reasonably infer that Claimant intended Employer and/or DEP to believe that the form had been signed by this other individual. Therefore, Claimant intended to deceive Employer and/or DEP. Because the record evidence supports the finding that Claimant violated the work rule, Claimant's forgery constituted willful misconduct.
Claimant next argues that he did not engage in willful misconduct because Employer was unlikely to be, and was not in fact, penalized as a result of his forgery and, therefore, his actions were not inimical to Employer's interests. In his brief, he asserts that his forgery was "an easily explainable mistake" and that it is improbable that DEP would fine Employer for a mere mistake of paperwork. (Claimant Br. at 15.) An employer may satisfy its burden to establish willful misconduct if it can show that the work rule was "obvious and the claimant's conduct [was] clearly inimical to [the] employer's best interest." Royster v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 34 A.3d 324, 327 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citing Kronstadt v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 489 A.2d 310 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984)). An employer is not required to show it experienced actual harm as a result of a claimant's actions. Rossi, 544 Pa. at 267, 676 A.2d at 198. Here, Claimant was aware of Employer's rule and that Employer could face repercussions for his violation of this rule. (Hr'g Tr. at 34, R.R. at R-36.) The Regional Manager testified that Claimant should have known that forging a signature on an official document was "one thing that you just never do in our industry." (Hr'g Tr. at 9, R.R. at R-11.) The Regional Manager also testified that Claimant's forgery could have resulted in DEP fines, an online record of Employer's violation, and Employer losing its account with the hospital. (Hr'g Tr. at 37-38, R.R. at R-39-40.) Additionally, Claimant directed his Co-worker to deliver the forged manifest to the hospital and replace the original document with the forged one, thus exposing the Co-worker to possible dismissal. (Hr'g Tr. at 38, R.R. at R-40.) Therefore, Claimant's forgery was clearly inimical to Employer's interests. Because Claimant acted in a manner he knew to be inimical to Employer's interest and because he violated a known work rule, the Board did not err in determining that his forgery constituted willful misconduct.
Finally, Claimant argues that, even if his forgery did constitute willful misconduct, the Board erred in determining that he failed to establish good cause for his actions. In his brief, Claimant appears to justify his forgery on two grounds: (1) he "wrongly" believed at the time that DEP might fine Employer if the manifest did not contain the correct generator name; and (2) the incorrect original manifest could have caused Employer to make a billing error. (Claimant Br. at 14.) A claimant must show that his rule violation was "justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances" in order to establish good cause. Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369. At the evidentiary hearing, Employer's Regional Manager testified that Claimant knew that there are "many ways" to remedy an incorrect manifest without resorting to forgery. (Hr'g Tr. at 17-18, R.R. at R-19-20.) Employer's Operations Assistant described one such permissible remedy: an employee should simply complete a new manifest signed by the generator's facility operator. (Hr'g Tr. at 23, R.R. at R-25.) Because Claimant could have remedied the incorrect manifest through permissible means, his forgery was neither justified nor reasonable. Therefore, the Board did not err in concluding that Claimant failed to establish good cause for violating Employer's work rule.
Accordingly, we affirm the Order of the Board.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge Senior Judge Friedman concurs in the result only. ORDER
NOW, July 27, 2012, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge