Philadelphia
Corp. for Aging v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – August 5, 2015 – unreported
memorandum opinion
Employer
did not satisfy its burden of proving willful misconduct where it did not
follow its own progressive disciplinary policy (PDP) in terminating claimant’s
employment. The employer presented no evidence that its PDP
permitted it to reinstate claimant’s probationary status, where claimant had
completed probationary period and became regular employee subject to PDP.
“Where
an employer has established a specific rule applicable to all employees, it
must follow its own progressive discipline policy when disciplining specific
employees.” Looney v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 529 A.2d 612,
614 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987.)
Employer
is correct that it can legally terminate employment of an at-will
employee without strictly adhering to its Disciplinary Actions Guide; however,
Employer relies on wrongful termination cases, which do not discuss eligibility
for UC
benefits, in its attempt to extend that proposition to the instant UC case. UC Law, on the other hand, examines whether an
employer adheres to its established policy in disciplining or terminating an
employee because “promulgation of specific rules puts employees on notice that
the employer will not consider such conduct to be adverse to its interest until
the requisite number of violations have been committed.” PMA Reinsurance
Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 A.2d 623, 626 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1989). If an employer does not follow its disciplinary policies when
discharging a claimant, we have held that the employer has consequently not
established, for purposes of UC Law, “that the discharge was for willful
misconduct related to [the] [c]laimant’s work.” Id. In these circumstances, the
claimant will not be deemed ineligible for UC benefits pursuant to Section
402(e) of the Law notwithstanding the employer’s prerogative to discharge
at-will employees for any number of reasons.
Here, Employer does not address the Referee’s finding that,
after Claimant successfully completed probation on December 22, 2013, she
became a regular employee subject to the rights and protections set forth in
Employer’s personnel handbook, including being disciplined in accordance with
the Disciplinary Actions Guide. Employer has provided no record evidence of the
disciplinary procedures, as provided for in its Disciplinary Actions Guide, or
specified the basis upon which it could reinstate a 90-day probationary period
for a regular employee who is tardy or absent in violation of Employer’s rules.6
Because Employer did not proffer the Disciplinary Actions Guide or any
testimony of any other procedures it follows as record evidence, there was no
evidence to support Employer’s argument that it could reinstate Claimant’s
probation as it did. The Board, therefore, could consider Claimant as a
regular, non-probationary employee for purposes of Employer’s disciplinary
policy, and there was no evidence that the policy provided for termination
under the facts found in this case.
____________________
This summary is also posted at the PLAN Legal Update http://planupdate.blogspot.com/,
which is searchable and can be accessed without a password.
The opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414. – soon to be Rule 3716 ***
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
