Opinion
No. 2469 C.D. 2011
08-09-2012
Nicholas Laugelli, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY
Nicholas Laugelli (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) November 7, 2011 order affirming the Referee's decision denying benefits. There are essentially two issues before the Court: (1) whether the UCBR's decision was based upon substantial evidence, and (2) whether Claimant's conduct constituted willful misconduct. We affirm.
Claimant was employed by Daniels' Discount (Employer) as a full-time driver and warehouse worker from May 6 through May 20, 2011. During his employment Claimant refused to perform some assigned tasks, claiming it was "not [his] job." Notes of Testimony, July 22, 2011 (N.T.) at 7. On May 19, 2011, Claimant asked Employer's Owner, Martin Whaley (Owner), whether he would be paid overtime. Owner advised Claimant that although not all employees were entitled to overtime pay, Claimant's position did receive overtime pay. Claimant thereafter engaged in disruptive discussions with his co-workers about overtime rules he obtained from the National Labor Relations Board. Claimant's co-workers complained to Owner about these disruptive discussions. On May 20, 2011, when Claimant retrieved his paycheck, he told Owner that Employer was violating federal law and threatened to "take [him] down." N.T. at 12. On May 20, 2011, Employer discharged Claimant for insubordination.
Claimant subsequently applied for Unemployment Compensation (UC) benefits. On June 17, 2011, the Duquesne UC Service Center mailed a notice of determination finding Claimant eligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). Employer appealed and, on July 22, 2011, a Referee held a hearing. On July 27, 2011, the Referee mailed her decision reversing the UC Service Center's determination, thereby finding Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. By order dated November 7, 2011, the UCBR affirmed the Referee's decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).
This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed. Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 869 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).
Claimant argues that the credibility determinations made by the UCBR were incorrect, and that Employer did not establish that it was justified in discharging Claimant for willful misconduct. We disagree.
Claimant asserts a myriad of challenges to the UCBR's decision, however, they basically encompass the above two arguments. --------
Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when his unemployment is due to discharge from work for willful misconduct connected to his work. The employer bears the burden of proving willful misconduct in an unemployment compensation case. Willful misconduct has been defined as
(1) an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or a disregard of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.Dep't of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744, 747 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citation omitted).
Whether specific conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a matter of law. Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 405 A.2d 1034 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Refusing an employer's assignment of work without good cause has been found to be willful misconduct. DiGiovanni v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 404 A.2d 449 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Further, willful misconduct has been found where an employee threatens action that interferes with an employer's business. Argentina v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 371 A.2d 561 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (employee threatened to send letters regarding the employee's complaints to individuals doing business with his employer).
This Court has stated:
In unemployment compensation proceedings, the Board is the ultimate factfinder and is empowered to resolve conflicts in the evidence and to determine the credibility of witnesses. Findings made by the Board are conclusive and binding on appeal if the record, when examined as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings.Kelly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 776 A.2d 331, 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001). "Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." City of Pittsburgh, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 927 A.2d 675, 676 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Here, the UCBR deemed Employer's witnesses to be credible, and resolved conflicts in testimony in Employer's favor, as it was entitled to do.
At the hearing before the Referee, Employer's General Manager, Robert Fink, testified:
Basically, [Claimant] was hired to be a warehouse/deliver[y] driver for us and became very confrontational with some of my employees and also when he was directed to do certain things became confrontational with me. To give you an example[,] I had asked him to move some merchandise or appliances into my showroom and unbox them and I was abruptly told that's not my, that's not my job. . . . [A]s the days wore on[,] . . . he became confrontational with quite a few of my employees and . . . tended to disrupt the workplace a little bit.N.T. at 7 (emphasis added). Further, Owner testified:
We were unloading a truck at one of our warehouses and [Claimant] was discussing the time that he had been working which was going to come into overtime which he absolutely got paid for overtime because his position does pay overtime. There are several positions in our company that do not. Interstate commerce with truck drivers and sales people that are commissioned don't get paid overtime. They get paid straight time. That had nothing to do with [Claimant]. He did receive a couple hours overtime that week. And he was paid for them. But that's when he started with his I'm going to turn you into the National Labor Relations Board and he was passing out flyers to the other employees. It was just very disruptive.
. . . .
[T]he other employees started coming to me and telling me that they didn't want to work with him, that he was disruptive and he has problems . . . . [Claimant] started working for me nine days prior, was telling me that he had a business degree and I didn't know what I was doing and he was going to take me down. . . . He said that he had a business degree and that I'm violating federal law and that he was going to prove me wrong and he was going to take
me down. I think his exact words were how he's going to teach me a lesson.N.T. at 11-12 (emphasis added). Clearly, this evidence supports the conclusion that Claimant's actions were in willful disregard of Employer's interest. Accordingly, the UCBR's determination that Claimant's conduct constituted willful misconduct was based upon substantial evidence.
For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
ORDER
AND NOW, this 9th day of August, 2012, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's November 7, 2011 order is affirmed.
/s/_________
ANNE E. COVEY, Judge