B.L. Readinger v. UCBR ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Brien L. Readinger,            :
    : No. 1289 C.D. 2016
    Petitioner : Submitted: December 16, 2016
    :
    v.            :
    :
    Unemployment Compensation      :
    Board of Review,               :
    :
    Respondent :
    BEFORE:       HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge
    HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge
    OPINION NOT REPORTED
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                                  FILED: June 5, 2017
    Brien L. Readinger (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of the June
    8, 2016 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that
    affirmed a referee’s determination and held that Claimant was ineligible for
    benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). 1
    We affirm.
    1
    Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S.
    §802(e). Section 402(e) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any
    week in which his unemployment is due to his discharge from work for willful misconduct
    connected with his work.
    Claimant began work as a full-time Water Plant Operator 1 with the
    Reading Area Water Authority (Employer) on March 23, 2015, and last worked
    during an overnight shift on March 4-5, 2016. On March 5, 2016, Employer
    discharged Claimant for leaving his position without being relieved by another
    operator. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits, but the
    local service center found that Claimant had committed willful misconduct and
    denied benefits under Section 402(e). Claimant appealed.
    A referee held a hearing on May 3, 2016.          Wendalin Narrero,
    Employer’s Payroll and Human Resources Coordinator, testified that on March 4,
    2016, Claimant was working the overnight third shift and left without clocking out
    and without being relieved by another operator. Narrero stated that, as a result,
    Employer sent Claimant a suspension letter dated March 7, 2016.          Notes of
    Testimony (N.T.), 5/03/2016, at 12-14. She testified that, thereafter, Employer
    sent Claimant a termination letter, dated March 14, 2016, which read, in pertinent
    part:
    Your termination is the result of the incident that took
    place on Saturday, March 5, 2016[,] at the Maiden Creek
    Filter Plant. On that date, you informed your supervisor
    that you “quit” and then proceeded to leave your position
    as water treatment operator without having a replacement
    operator onsite, imperiling the customers of the water
    system.
    Employer Exhibit E3; N.T. at 15.
    Patrick Bauer, Employer’s Chief Operator, testified that at 11:42 p.m.
    on Friday, March 4, 2016, he received a text message from Claimant with a
    question regarding a check. Bauer stated that when he called Claimant back, he
    realized that Claimant had responded to a text message that Bauer sent in
    December. Bauer informed Claimant that it was an old message and there was no
    2
    check. Bauer testified that he mistakenly called Claimant by a co-worker’s name
    during the conversation and that Claimant began screaming that he was not
    respected in the work place, that he needed money, that there had been a recent
    break-in at his home, and that his car was recently vandalized. Bauer stated that
    after screaming about being treated poorly at work, Claimant said that he quit and
    hung up the phone. N.T. at 16-17.
    Bauer testified that he sent Claimant a text message, asking that
    Claimant call him, and then received a phone call from Vasile Hrezdac,
    Employer’s Maintenance Worker, who informed him that Claimant had left work
    and that Claimant’s car was no longer in the parking lot. Bauer stated that he left
    for the plant and, during his drive to the plant, he received a text message from
    Claimant stating that he went home sick. Bauer testified that although he finished
    the remainder of Claimant’s shift, the water plant was without a certified operator
    for approximately 22 minutes, in violation of Department of Environmental
    Protection (DEP) regulations requiring certain readings to be taken every 15
    minutes and certain actions to be taken if those readings are irregular. N.T. at 17-
    18.
    Bauer further testified that all operators fill out an operator’s checklist
    at the beginning and end of their shifts to ensure that they do not forget anything
    important. At the bottom of the page, there are three notes, and Note #2 states that
    an operator may “NOT leave [his] work area until relieved.” Service Center
    Exhibit 5A (emphasis in original); N.T. at 18-19.
    Hrezdac testified that he was working on the second floor when
    Claimant called up to him from the first floor, screaming to Hrezdac that he was
    leaving and that he quit. N.T. at 20.
    3
    Claimant testified that he called Bauer on the night of March 4-5,
    2016, to inquire about a check and that Bauer informed him that the text message
    Claimant received was an error. Claimant stated that he did not remember the
    precise content of his conversation with Bauer, but he acknowledged that he had
    been upset. He asserted that he had been harassed by nearly every employee at the
    plant regarding the check, but he did not elaborate as to the nature of the
    harassment. N.T. at 22-25.
    Claimant stated that he did not remember who terminated his phone
    call with Bauer. He also testified that he did not remember receiving a text
    message from Bauer after their phone call and that was the reason he did not call
    back. Claimant stated that he did not recall sending a text message to Bauer
    informing him that he was going home sick in response to Bauer’s message, but
    admitted he may have sent the message. N.T. at 25-26.
    Claimant testified that he is an asthmatic and that he was not feeling
    well that night. Claimant testified that he informed both Bauer and Hrezdac that he
    was leaving early because he was not feeling well and that he never said that he
    quit. N.T. at 25-26.
    Claimant further testified that he signed the operator’s checklist, but
    said that he had never been properly trained regarding the requirement that he not
    leave his station until he was relieved by a replacement operator.       Claimant
    admitted that he did not wait for a replacement before leaving his work area. N.T.
    at 27-28.
    The referee affirmed the service center’s denial of benefits.      The
    referee found that Claimant should have been aware of Employer’s policy and,
    nevertheless, left his work area without being relieved by another operator. The
    4
    referee credited Bauer’s testimony that Claimant stated that he quit during their
    phone call. The referee did not question that Claimant was feeling unwell when he
    left work, but determined that anger, not illness, was Claimant’s primary motivator
    for leaving work on his last day. The referee concluded that Claimant committed
    willful misconduct and was ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.
    Claimant appealed to the Board, arguing that he was not properly
    trained on the policy that he not leave his work area without relief, nor was he
    aware of the possible consequences that would result from violating the policy.
    Claimant also asserted that even if he had quit, he would not have been ineligible
    for benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law;2 according to Claimant, the work
    environment was hostile, he was harassed about his illness, he was threatened with
    a gun, and his “safety, health, and morals” were threatened by other employees’
    misuse of Employer’s equipment. Record Item No. 11.
    By decision and order dated June 8, 2016, the Board affirmed the
    decision of the referee and held that Claimant was ineligible for benefits under
    Section 402(e) of the Law.          Specifically, the Board found that Employer’s
    checklist states that operators are not to leave work without relief, in accordance
    with DEP regulations. Board’s Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 2-3. The Board also
    found that, after a confrontation with Bauer, Claimant left his position without
    being relieved, leaving Employer without an operator on location for 22 minutes.
    F.F. Nos. 4-14. The Board concluded that Claimant’s actions violated a known,
    reasonable employment policy. The Board rejected as not credible Claimant’s
    2
    Section 402(b) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for
    compensation for any week in which his employment is due to voluntarily leaving work without
    cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. 43 P.S. §802(b).
    5
    assertion that he left because he was sick and concluded that Claimant did not
    credibly establish good cause for leaving his work site without waiting for a
    replacement. The Board added that, had it decided the case under Section 402(b)
    of the Law, it likewise would have denied benefits because Claimant failed to
    make a reasonable effort to maintain his employment. The Board subsequently
    denied Claimant’s request for reconsideration.
    On appeal to this Court,3 Claimant argues that the Board erred in
    concluding that Employer met its burden of proving that he committed willful
    misconduct. Claimant asserts that Employer has no rule that prohibits leaving
    work due to illness and that his illness constituted good cause for his leaving work
    during his shift.4
    Whether an employee’s actions constitute willful misconduct is a
    legal determination fully reviewable by this Court. Guthrie v. Unemployment
    Compensation Board of Review, 
    738 A.2d 518
    , 521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). Although
    not defined in the Law, “willful misconduct is defined by the courts as: (1) wanton
    and willful disregard of an employer's interests; (2) deliberate violation of rules;
    (3) disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect
    from an employee; or, (4) negligence showing an intentional disregard of the
    employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations.” Johns v.
    3
    Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were
    violated, whether an error of law was committed, and whether necessary findings of fact are
    supported by substantial evidence. Kirkwood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
    
    525 A.2d 841
    , 843-44 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
    4
    Although Claimant maintains that he did not quit, he again complains that he would not
    be ineligible under Section 402(b) because conditions in his workplace provided necessitous and
    compelling cause to leave his employment voluntarily. However, Claimant’s eligibility under
    Section 402(b) is not at issue in this appeal.
    6
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    87 A.3d 1006
    , 1009 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2014). Where an employer seeks to deny unemployment compensation benefits
    based on a work rule violation, the employer must prove the existence of a
    reasonable work rule and the employee’s violation of the rule. Maskerines v.
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    13 A.3d 553
    , 557 (Pa. Cmwlth.
    2011). If the employer meets its burden, the burden then shifts to the claimant to
    demonstrate good cause for his actions. Johns, 
    87 A.3d at 1010
    .
    The Board is the factfinder in unemployment compensation cases,
    empowered to determine credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicts in evidence.
    Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 
    752 A.2d 938
    , 940 (Pa.
    Cmwlth. 2000). “[T]he Board . . . may reject even uncontradicted testimony if it is
    deemed not credible or worthy of belief.” Stockdill v. Unemployment
    Compensation Board of Review, 
    368 A.2d 1341
    , 1343 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). We are
    bound by the Board’s findings so long as there is substantial evidence in the
    record, taken as a whole, supporting those findings. Guthrie, 
    738 A.2d at 521
    .
    Here, the Board credited Employer’s evidence that it had a known,
    reasonable rule and that Claimant was discharged for violating the rule. The Board
    rejected as not credible Claimant’s statements that his primary reason for leaving
    work without being relieved was due to illness. Based on the credible testimony
    offered by Employer, the Board determined that Claimant intended to leave his
    employment and did so without waiting for a replacement.
    Despite Claimant’s assertions that he was not trained regarding
    Employer’s rule and that Employer’s witnesses lied at the hearing, we are bound
    by the Board’s credibility determinations and findings of fact, so long as they are
    supported by substantial evidence. Guthrie, 
    738 A.2d at 521
    . Upon careful review
    7
    of the record, we find ample support for the Board’s findings, which in turn
    support the Board’s denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.
    Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s order.
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
    8
    IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
    Brien L. Readinger,            :
    : No. 1289 C.D. 2016
    Petitioner :
    :
    v.            :
    :
    Unemployment Compensation      :
    Board of Review,               :
    :
    Respondent :
    ORDER
    AND NOW, this 5th day of June, 2017, the order of the
    Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated June 8, 2016, at No. B-16-
    09-B-2370, B-589823, is AFFIRMED.
    __________________________________
    MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge