Holdings
Acquisition Co., dba Rivers Casino v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 10-19-15 –
unreported memorandum opinion
In
this willful misconduct case, the claimant was found eligible (or as they like
to say, not ineligible), because
- employer claim in Cmwlth Court appeal
was not raised before the referee or board, so it was waiver -- An
employer “must prove that the act in question was the actual reason for the
claimant’s discharge.” Browning–Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc. v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 561 A.2d 856, 857 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1989). Issues not properly raised before the Referee and the Board are waived
on appeal. See Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 436
A.2d 179 (Pa. 1981) (quoting Zakrzewski v. Unemployment Compensation Board
of Review, 381 A.2d 503, 504 (Pa. 1978)) (holding that issue “is not
properly before us” because it was not presented to Referee or Board). Waiver is also embodied in Pennsylvania Rule
of Appellate Procedure 1551(a)
- standard of conduct is “not an
exact science” - In Woodson v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 336 A.2d 867 (Pa. 1975), the
Supreme Court explained: “A determination of whether an employee has engaged in
willful misconduct can ... only be made by considering what standard of conduct
an employer reasonably requires. Standards expected by one employer may of
course not be the standards of another employer. Willful misconduct cannot
therefore be considered in a vacuum. It must be considered in relation to
the particular employees and to the reasonable standards expected by a
particular employer.” Id. at 868 (emphasis
added). Stated otherwise, the “standard of conduct” analysis is not an exact
science.
___________________
An unreported
case may not be cited “binding precedent” but can be cited “for its persuasive
value. . . .” See 210 Pa. Code § 69.414 (a) and Pa.
R.A.P. 3716 [45 Pa.B. 3975; Saturday, July 25, 2015]
If the case is
old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can use the case
and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Google
Scholar)
