Opinion
No. 1962 C.D. 2012
07-11-2013
Harvey D. Eden, Jr., Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
Harvey D. Eden, Jr., (Claimant) petitions for review of the September 5, 2012, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) reversing a referee's decision to grant Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. The UCBR determined that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because he committed willful misconduct. We reverse.
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 "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." 43 P.S. §802(e).
Claimant worked for the Warrell Corporation (Employer) as a full-time line lead on a candy production line from November 6, 2006, until April 2, 2012. (UCBR's Findings of Fact, Nos. 1, 2.) Employer's metal detection policy requires employees to check the candy for metal every two hours using specific metal cards and to document the tests on a metal detection checklist. (Id., No. 4.) Employer also has a policy prohibiting dishonesty and falsification of business records. (Id., No. 3.)
As line lead, Claimant ensured that employees completed the metal detection tests and filed the appropriate paperwork. (Id., No. 6.) Claimant suspected that a co-worker had been skipping the tests and falsely completing the metal detection checklist. (Id., No. 7.)
On April 2, 2012, in order to catch his co-worker falsifying the metal detection checklist, Claimant pocketed the metal cards needed to complete the metal detection tests. (Id., No. 8.) When the shift ended, Claimant approached the co-worker and asked him to turn in the metal detection checklist. (Id., No. 9.) When confronted about the false entries, the co-worker crossed out the falsely documented entries. (Id., No. 11.)
The paperwork indicated that the tests had been completed, which was impossible because Claimant had taken the metal cards. (N.T. at 21.)
Claimant immediately took the documentation to his supervisor and explained that the co-worker falsified the records. (Id., No. 12.) However, because the metal detection tests had not been completed, Employer had to reprocess the shift's output. (Id., No. 14.) Employer suspended Claimant and began an investigation. (Id., No. 13.) On April 6, 2012, Employer discharged Claimant for violating the metal detection policy, falsifying business records, and dishonesty. (Id., No. 17.)
Claimant applied for UC benefits with the local service center, which denied benefits pursuant to section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed this determination to a referee. The referee held a hearing on June 4, 2012, and reversed the local service center, granting Claimant benefits.
Employer appealed to the UCBR. On September 5, 2012, the UCBR reversed the referee's decision, made new findings of fact, and found Claimant ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant petitioned this court for review.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in finding that Claimant engaged in willful misconduct by violating a work rule without good cause. We agree.
"Willful misconduct has been defined as: (1) a wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interests; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of the standards of behavior that an employer rightfully can expect from its employees; or (4) negligence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations." Adams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 A.3d 76, 78 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). "Where a claim of willful misconduct is based upon violation of company rules or policies, the employer has the burden to prove: 1) the existence of a reasonable rule or policy, 2) that the employee knew of the rule or policy, and 3) that the employee willfully violated the rule or policy." Vought v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 504 A.2d 425, 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). If an employer proves a work-rule violation, the burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove that he had good cause for his actions. Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). "The employee establishes good cause where [his] actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances." Id.
Here, no dispute exists about the work rules or Claimant's awareness of them. Moreover, Claimant committed an intentional act by pocketing the metal detection cards, knowingly making completion of the metal detection tests impossible, and thereby violating the metal detection policy.
Thus, our inquiry turns to whether Claimant had good cause for deviating from the policy. Claimant, in his supervisory role, acted to ensure that his subordinate adhered to the metal detection policy. Had Claimant done nothing, the co-worker would have continued falsifying the metal detection checklist, potentially endangering the public and exposing Employer to additional liabilities. While alternatives existed to pocketing the metal detection cards, Claimant subjectively acted in the best interest of Employer by devising a justifiable method to catch his co-worker skipping the metal detection tests and falsifying the metal detection checklist.
As Claimant stated: "[I]f I wouldn't have caught this situation and brought it to [Employer's] attention, they would have allowed that product to go out the door un-metal-detected." (N.T. at 22.)
Employer argues that Claimant's conduct was not justifiable because he should have communicated his plan to Employer. See Klapec Trucking Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 503 A.2d 1122, 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (noting that informative communication is a factor to consider when determining whether an employee had good cause for violating a work rule). Although Claimant did not inform Employer of his plan to catch his co-worker falsifying the metal detection checklist prior to pocketing the metal detection cards, Claimant had previously voiced concerns about his co-worker's conduct. (See N.T. at 23.) Claimant had been told by his supervisors that he needed facts. (See N.T. at 22, 24.) Moreover, Claimant immediately reported the falsification incident to Employer on April 2, 2012, when the shift ended. (See N.T. at 6.) --------
Employer also argues that Claimant committed willful misconduct by being dishonest during Employer's investigation. This court has held that "an 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) (finding that a claimant's failure to disclose information was not an affirmative deception).
Here, the UCBR found that "[t]he claimant, after being initially questioned by the employer, changed his story and told the employer that he conducted metal inspections but did not document them." (UCBR's Findings of Fact, No. 15.) Although Claimant provided additional information in subsequent discussions with Employer, thereby "changing his story," because neither the UCBR's findings nor the evidence of record indicates any affirmative deception, Claimant did not engage in willful misconduct through dishonesty.
We find that Claimant acted justifiably under the circumstances. Therefore, he had good cause for deviating from Employer's policy, and the UCBR erred in denying Claimant UC benefits under section 402(e) of the Law.
Accordingly, we reverse.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of July, 2013, we hereby reverse the September 5, 2012, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge