Chester
Community Charter School v. UCBR – February 17, 2016 – unreported* memorandum
opinion
Court
affirmed the UCBR decision that employer failed to make out a case for willful
misconduct, since it did not prove that the claimant’s violation of a work rule
was intentional or deliberate.
An
employer alleging willful misconduct bears the burden of proving the existence
of a reasonable work rule and its violation. Daniels v. UCBR, 755 A.2d
729, 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). The employer must also show that the employee
intentionally or deliberately violated the work rule. Tongel v. UCBR,
501 A.2d 716, 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985); see also MacFarlane v. UCBR, 317
A.2d 324, 326 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (“In all these definitions [of willful
misconduct] there is an element indicating a consciousness of wrongdoing on the
part of the employe[e].”). An inadvertent or negligent violation of an
employer’s rule may not constitute willful misconduct. Grieb v. UCBR,
827 A.2d 422, 426 (Pa. 2003); Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. UCBR, 419
A.2d 238, 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). Therefore, a determination of what
constitutes willful misconduct requires consideration of all the relevant
circumstances. Rebel v. UCBR, 723 A.2d 156, 158 (Pa. 1998).
If an employer
meets its initial burden to establish the existence of a reasonable work rule
and its deliberate violation, the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate
good cause for violating the rule. Guthrie v. UCBR, 738 A.2d 518, 522
(Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). However, where an employer fails to carry its initial
burden of proving a deliberate violation, it is unnecessary to consider whether
the claimant’s conduct constitutes good cause. Philadelphia Parking
Authority v. UCBR, 1 A.3d 965, 969 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
The
court rejected the employer argument that it need only prove the existence and
violation of the work rule, stating that all of the cases cited by employer
involved a prior specific warning that the claimant’s behavior violated
employer rules. It also discussed
Heitczman v. UCBR, 638 A.2d 461 (1994), where it held that the claimant’s
conduct there involved disobedience of a direct instruction rather than
violation of a rulel.
----------------------
* 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)
