Tuesday, November 15, 2022

UC - willful misconduct - hearsay - claimant admission not specific

Chester Community Charter School v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 10-3-2-22 – opinion not reported**

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/14CD21_10-3-22.pdf?cb=1

 

Held: General admission by claimant of wrongdoing (“whatever”) is not the equivalent of an admission to the specific wrongful conduct alleged by the employer.  

 

School alleged the claimant/teacher had called a student an “idiot” but offered no non-hearsay, first-hand evidence of that. Claimant did not attend the referee hearing, but school offered into evidence a letter from claimant in which he stated that he couldn’t attend the hearing because of his work schedule.  Claimant’s letter also stated” “All I was looking for [sic] unemployment funds, yes I am guilty of whatever [Employer] is claimingt. If you need to speak with me, I am available at [redacted.]”

 

The court said that 

Claimant’s admission to whatever is not an admission to calling a student an idiot. See Bailey v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 597 A.2d 241, 243 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (“At no time did [the c]laimant testify as to the specific language which he directed at the terminal supervisor, but only acknowledged that he used abrasive language.” “As such, the Referee had no substantial evidence upon which to make a finding that [the c]laimant had directed abusive language towards the terminal supervisor[.]).” Accordingly, Claimant’s letter is not competent evidence to corroborate the Principal’s testimony. . . . Based on this Court’s review, the UCBR properly disregarded Employer’s hearsay evidence that was admitted without objection because it was not “corroborated by other competent evidence in the record.”Bell, 49 A.3d at 55. Without such evidence, Employer failed to meet its burden of proving Claimant committed willful misconduct. Accordingly, this Court is constrained to affirm the UCBR’s order. 

+++++++++


** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).