Clark v.
UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – January 6, 2016 – unreported memorandum opinion*
UCBR
finding of willful misconduct reversed, since employer evidence failed to show
that claimant, a liquor store manager, sough to wrongfully manipulated store
records and steal money. Employer did
not show that claimant’s conduct was anything more than negligence. Weighing in favor of claimant was the fact
that the store inventory match the bottles on the shelf.
The
issue was whether Claimant’s departure from Employer’s directions on record
keeping constitutes willful misconduct. Rung v. UCBR, 689 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1997), is instructive in this regard. In Rung, the claimant was a bank teller
who inexplicably came up $600 short when cashing out her till at the end of the
day. The court held that inadvertent,
nonintentional violations of an employer’s policies do not constitute willful
misconduct. Rung, 689 A.2d at 1001. Furthermore, we explained: [A]n employer
cannot demonstrate willful misconduct by ‘merely showing that an employee
committed a negligent act, but instead must present evidence indicating that
the conduct was of an intentional and deliberate nature. Id. (emphasis added)
(quoting Myers v. UCBR, 625 A.2d 622, 625 (Pa. 1993)). Because the claimant’s
error was the result of nothing more than mere negligence, the claimant had not
committed willful misconduct. Therefore, the claimant was entitled to
unemployment benefits. Here, Claimant’s actions are analogous to the actions of
the claimant in Rung.
*
An unreported Commonwealth Court case may not be cited binding precedent but
can be cited for its persuasive value. See 210
Pa. Code § 69.414(b)
and Pa.
R.A.P. 3716
If
the case is old, the link may have become stale and may not work, but you can
use the case name, court, and date to find the opinion in another source (e.g.,
Westlaw, Lexis, Google Scholar)
