General
Pipe Cleaning and Sewer v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – July 7, 2016 – unpublished* memorandum
opinion
The
court affirmed the UCBR decision that claimant truck-driver had not committed
willful misconduct as a result of his negligence in causing an accident, which
caused $100,000 damage. Substantial
evidence supported the Board’s findings that
a) claimant was discharged because of the
accident, and not a violation of ER rules.
b) claimant did not deliberately
cause the accident – cf. Heitczman v. UCBR, 638 A.2d 461 (claimant knowingly
violated ER rule)
Claimant’s
actions in causing the accident and the damage to the employer’s vehicle, were
clearly negligent. Negligence, however, is not willful. Therefore, as
repeatedly held by the courts benefits cannot be denied under Section 402(e) of
the Law. See Myers [v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 625 A.2d
622 (Pa. 1997)]; Navickas [v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review,
787 A.2d 284 (Pa. 2001)]; Grieb [v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review,
827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2002).
The
courts have repeatedly held that for a rule violation to constitute willful
misconduct, the violation must be done knowingly and deliberately.
Eshbach v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004);
BK Foods, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 547 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1988); Kriebel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 426 A.2d 1240 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1981); Frazier v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 411 A.2d 580 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1980); Holomshek v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 395 A.2d 708 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1979). Claimant’s inadvertent conduct here does not amount to willful
misconduct.
-----------------------
* 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)
