Summary
holding that claimant's belief that relocating her work area would fail to remedy alleged harassment did not furnish good cause to disobey employer's reasonable directive
Summary of this case from Ickes v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of ReviewOpinion
October 15, 1982.
Unemployment compensation — Wilful misconduct — Refusal to follow directive — Sufficient evidence.
1. Proof that an employe refused a directive to change her work area to a place closer to her supervisor who could thus better observe alleged incidents of harassing conduct by other employes is properly found to establish wilful misconduct precluding her receipt of unemployment compensation benefits when she is discharged as a result of such refusal, and her belief that such a move would not remedy the situation does not constitute good cause for such refusal. [350-1]
2. An unemployment compensation decision will not be reversed on the ground that the factfinder considered hearsay evidence not in the record when sufficient evidence exists in the record to support the decision. [351]
Submitted on briefs September 16, 1982, to Judges BLATT, WILLIAMS, JR. and CRAIG, sitting as a panel of three.
Appeal, No. 2160 C.D. 1981, from the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in case of In Re: Claim of Pauline E. Hart, No. B-198034.
Application with the Office of Employment Security for unemployment compensation benefits. Application denied. Applicant appealed. Benefits awarded. Employer appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Benefits denied. Applicant appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Affirmed.
Stephen J. Mascherino, with him Thomas J. Wagner, Glenvar E. Harman Associates, for petitioner.
Charles G. Hasson, Assistant Counsel, with him Richard L. Cole, Jr., Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Pauline E. Hart (claimant) appeals an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying her benefits on the basis that her unemployment was due to her own willful misconduct.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P. S. § 802(e).
The claimant was last employed as an inspector by the Burroughs Corporation (employer) and has testified that she was often the target of comments by her fellow employees regarding her personal appearance. She discussed this harassment with her employer and, when no action was taken, she decided to move her work area to a more remote location. This relocation was done without her employer's permission and, when it was discovered, she was ordered to return to her original work area. One week later she was told to move into a new area which was near enough to her supervisor so that, as was testified, he could overhear any comments made by her fellow employees and bring an end to any harassment. The claimant, believing that this relocation would not solve the problem, refused to move and was consequently dismissed for the remainder of that day. On the following day her employment was terminated.
It is axiomatic that the employer bears the burden of establishing willful misconduct and we have recognized that an employee's refusal to honor a reasonable directive of an employer constitutes willful misconduct. Jimenez v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 53 Pa. Commw. 434, 417 A.2d 870 (1980). Here, after carefully reviewing the record and keeping in mind our scope of review, we believe that substantial evidence exists which would support the Board's findings and warrant a conclusion that this claimant's refusal to obey her employer's reasonable directive constitutes willful misconduct. Id.
Zuraw v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 61 Pa. Commw. 548, 434 A.2d 1312 (1981).
The claimant argues that the Board failed to make findings of fact showing that she acted without good cause. The Board specifically found, however, that "[t]he claimant refused to move her work because she did not believe it would solve the problem." We believe that this finding, which was clearly made without a capricious disregard of competent evidence in the record, embraces the issue of good cause and we agree with the Board that such a "belief " as the claimant alleges she had was not good cause for refusing a reasonable directive.
Gwin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 58 Pa. Commw. 69, 427 A.2d 295 (1981).
The claimant also argues that the Board erred in considering a letter submitted by the employer after the referee's hearing which allegedly contained hearsay evidence prejudicial to her and facts not developed at the hearing. Our review of the record discloses, however, that the Board's findings of fact were based on the evidence placed before the referee at the hearing. Because the Board's findings were, therefore, based on competent evidence, we must reject this argument as well.
We will therefore affirm the order of the Board.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 15th day of October, 1982, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby affirmed.