Opinion
No. 1241 C.D. 2012
02-07-2013
Career Technology Center, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS
Career Technology Center (Employer) petitions for review from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), affirming and adopting the decision of the referee awarding unemployment compensation benefits to Christine Menichini (Claimant). We affirm.
Claimant was employed, full-time, as a cosmetology instructor from February 2006 until the date her employment was terminated, February 8, 2012. (Record Item (R. Item) 9, Transcript of Testimony (T.T.) at 4.) Claimant filed an application for unemployment compensation benefits. By notice of determination mailed February 23, 2012, Claimant's application for benefits was denied by the Scranton Service Center on the basis that she was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) due to willful misconduct. Claimant appealed the notice of determination and the matter was heard before a referee. The referee determined that Employer did not sustain its burden of showing that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct, reversed the notice of determination, and awarded unemployment compensation benefits to Claimant. Employer then appealed the referee's decision to the Board.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which his or her unemployment is due to discharge for willful misconduct connected to his or her work. 43 P.S. § 802(e).
By order dated June 1, 2012, the Board adopted and incorporated the referee's findings and conclusions, and affirmed his decision. (R. Item 15, Board's Order.) Employer filed a timely appeal with this Court.
In unemployment compensation appeals, this Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. On Line Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 941 A.2d 786, 788 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is empowered to resolve conflicts in and weigh the evidence, including determinations as to the credibility of witnesses; when substantial evidence supports the Board's order, the Board is the ultimate finder of fact, making its findings binding and conclusive on appeal. Id. --------
Claimant, represented by counsel, testified at the hearing together with Employer's Administrative Director (AD), also represented by counsel. The AD testified that an applicant for a position as a cosmetology instructor must possess both a cosmetology license from a cosmetology school, and certification from the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (T.T. at 5-6.) The AD explained that the "Vocational Level I Instruction Certificate" Claimant held at the time she commenced her employment with Employer was valid for six years, and required its holder to complete, within those six years, fourteen college-level courses in order to qualify for a "Level II" or permanent certificate and thereby maintain eligibility for employment. (T.T. at 6, 24-25.) Claimant's Vocational Level I Instruction Certificate expired on January 17, 2012. (T.T. at 10.) Claimant testified that on January 20, 2012, she brought her application for her Level II certificate to the AD's office, because she had just passed her math praxis test, another requirement for that certificate. (T.T. at 28.) Later that week, Claimant requested an electronic transfer of her transcript to the CTE (current technology advisor) at Temple University, and was subsequently advised by the CTE that she was missing one of the fourteen required courses, Introduction to Education, ED-101. (T.T. at 29.) Claimant testified that she was under the impression that she had in fact completed that course, and she immediately returned home to search her records to find some verification, to no avail. (Id.) The next morning, she called the local community college to request permission for late registration for the course, and later that day, she completed the registration. (Id.) On February 7, 2012, Claimant met with the AD to explain the situation:
[I] had found out that I had missed a class, and I would - I had asked him if he could write a letter citing extenuating circumstances. And he kept stating to me, I will not defer from past practice. And he told me, it's not my fault...that you let your certification run out. And I explained to him that it was just an oversight. I did not do it intentionally, and all I - that I loved my job, and that all I wanted to do was keep my job.(T.T. at 31.)
The AD testified that after he began to process the paperwork for Claimant's Level II Certificate, and met with Claimant and learned of her status, he conducted a follow-up check with the Department of Education, which confirmed that Claimant's certificate was no longer valid. (T.T. at 10-11.) The AD stated that he was then required by law to remove her from the classroom, as of February 8, 2012, and thereafter filled her position from a group of four qualified candidates. (T.T. at 14.)
On appeal, Employer argues that Claimant was well aware of her obligation to obtain appropriate certification in order to remain eligible for employment, and has not shown "good cause" for her failure to do so. Employer states that her failure to obtain appropriate certification indicates an intentional disregard of Employer's interest or of Claimant's duties and obligations as an employee, and therefore constitutes willful misconduct. (Employer's Brief at 8-9.)
Section 402(e) of the Law does not define "willful misconduct" but it has been judicially defined as the: (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. Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 573 Pa. 594, 600, 827 A.2d 422, 425 (2003).
The burden of proving willful misconduct rests with the employer. Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 567 Pa. 298, 304, 787 A.2d 284, 288 (2001). An employer cannot demonstrate willful misconduct by merely showing that an employee committed a negligent act, but instead must present evidence indicating that the conduct was of an intentional and deliberate nature. Grieb, 573 Pa. at 600, 827 A.2d at 426. This Court has acknowledged that a determination of whether an action constitutes willful misconduct requires a consideration of all the circumstances, including the reasons for the employee's noncompliance with the employer's directives. Id. If a claimant is able to demonstrate that she made a good faith effort to comply with an employer policy or demand, a conclusion of willful misconduct is precluded. Gilbert v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 431 A.2d 1151, 1152 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981).
Employer relies on Chacko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 410 A.2d 418 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980), wherein a nurse failed to take an examination the passing of which was required to obtain state licensure, and was denied benefits due to willful misconduct in connection with her work. In Chacko, our Court rejected the claimant's argument that she had made a good faith effort to comply with the licensing requirements, noting that she made no effort to communicate her alleged efforts and difficulties to her employer. 410 A.2d at 419. Here, as in Chacko, Claimant knew of the requirement that she complete the required coursework in order to qualify for certification and continued eligibility for employment. (T.T. at 28.) However, unlike the nurse in Chacko, Claimant had completed thirteen of the fourteen required courses and she delivered her application for Level II certification to Employer for processing with absolute confidence that she had fulfilled all the necessary requirements. Upon notification that her transcript revealed her to be short one course, she immediately took steps to become enrolled in the requisite course, and met with Employer to discuss the situation.
The referee found that Claimant inadvertently did not take the required ED-101 course. (R. Item 10, Referee's Decision, Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶7.) He reasoned that she had good cause to believe she had completed the required coursework. The Board determined that Claimant "credibly testified that she believed that she had completed the requirements for her Level II certification," and that she "inadvertently, rather than willfully, failed to take one of the required courses and did not discover the omission until she went to apply for the Level II certificate." (R. Item 15, Board's Order.)
Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the Board did not err in concluding that Claimant's actions did not rise to the level of willful misconduct. Accordingly, the decision of the Board is affirmed.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 7th day of February, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge