Claimant
had problems with her supervisor. When they reviewed a written report of
the supervisor, claimant said she wasn’t accusing the supervisor of lying but
one statement in the report was a lie. Claimant was fired and referee
found she'd committed willful misconduct.
Claimant
timely appealed to the UCBR, which determined that although Employer had the right to discharge Claimant,
Claimant’s statement to her supervisor that the supervisor was lying was not
willful misconduct. (UCBR’s Decision, 10/12/12, at 3.) The UCBR explained:
The
claimant may not have used the most appropriate language by spontaneously
saying that it was a lie. The employer may have had reason to determine that
the claimant could no longer work with her supervisor. However, the claimant’s
comment was not so egregious as to rise to the level of disqualifying willful
misconduct.
Therefore,
the UCBR reversed the referee’s decision and awarded Claimant benefits.
By
letter dated October 26, 2012, Employer requested reconsideration of the UCBR’s
decision. In the five-page letter, Employer objected to Claimant’s petition for
appeal to the UCBR, claiming that it was improperly filed by a different
counsel than was present at the referee’s hearing and that it was replete with
inaccurate and misleading statements. Employer also outlined numerous
“inaccuracies” in the UCBR’s findings of fact and offered Employer’s
“corrected” version of the facts.
The UCBR granted Employer’s request for reconsideration and
vacated its prior order. The UCBR did not state any reason for granting
reconsideration and did not take any additional evidence. The UCBR then entered
a new order affirming the referee’s denial of benefits under section 402(e) of
the Law. The UCBR concluded:
The claimant stated the supervisor was lying. At that point,
the employer had reason to determine that the claimant could no longer work
with her supervisor. However she phrased it, the claimant accused her
supervisor of lying at a meeting with the Executive Director. That amounts to
disqualifying willful misconduct.
Claimant requested reconsideration of the UCBR’s decision,
which the UCBR denied.
In
her petition for review, Claimant asserts that the UCBR abused its discretion
in granting reconsideration and vacating its October 12, 2012, order without
good cause. We agree.
The
UCBR’s regulations provide that reconsideration will be granted “only for good
cause in the interest of justice without prejudice to any party.” 34 Pa. Code
§101.111(b). “In determining whether ‘good cause’ exists, the [UCBR] must
consider whether the party requesting reconsideration has presented new evidence
or changed circumstances or whether [the UCBR] failed to consider relevant
law.” Ensle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 740 A.2d 775,
779 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). None of these requirements was met in this case.
In its
reconsideration request, Employer did not allege a change of circumstance, seek
to introduce new evidence that was unavailable at the time of the hearing, or
articulate any legal theory that the UCBR failed to consider in its initial
decision. Employer merely reargued its case before the UCBR, which is not “good
cause” for granting reconsideration. See Bushofsky v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 626 A.2d 687, 690 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (stating
that reconsideration is properly denied where the petitioner seeks to introduce
“the evidence already offered”); Grcich v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 440 A.2d 681, 682-83 & n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (holding that
the UCBR improperly granted reconsideration and reversed its prior order where
“the only additional factual elements contained in the record” after
the UCBR’s initial decision were two employer letters asserting that the UCBR
“‘completely ignore[d] the testimony of every witness except [claimant]’” and
committed other improprieties) (quoting the record); see also Ensle, 740
A.2d at 779-80 (noting that the UCBR may not grant reconsideration merely to
revisit credibility issues).
Moreover,
“before the [UCBR] agrees to reconsider its own decision[,] there must appear
of record some reason to support this exercise of discretion.” Flanagan v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 407 A.2d 471, 473 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1979). Here, nothing in Employer’s reconsideration request, the UCBR’s order
granting reconsideration, or the record demonstrates good cause. In addition,
because the UCBR failed to state its reason for granting reconsideration and
took no additional evidence, Claimant had no opportunity to present her
position on the issue or issues being reconsidered. The UCBR acted in direct
conflict with its own regulation, which states that reconsideration is proper
“only for good cause in the interest of justice without prejudice to any
party.” 34 Pa. Code §101.111(b). Therefore, we conclude that the UCBR abused
its discretion in granting reconsideration without good cause.
