Employee’s
deliberate decision to flout ER email policy on internal mass mailings
constituted willful misconduct, despite ER policy for discipline short of
discharge, where ER policy gave it discretion to impose greater sanction, and
it chose to do so.
When Claimant’s
application for religious exemption to ER mandatory flu vaccination was denied,
he sent out a series of 13 mini-mass mailings to co-workers, after he was
unable to send out single mass mailing because of lack of permission.
The evidence reflects
Claimant’s acknowledgement of Employer’s e-mail policies and his deliberate
decision to flout Employer’s prohibition against mass e-mails by circumventing
the restrictions on the distribution list and sending thirteen e-mails. Accordingly, we conclude that Claimant’s
actions constituted willful misconduct. Furthermore, the fact that Employer’s
policies provide for discipline short of discharge does not negate Claimant’s
termination for willful misconduct where its policies clearly afford it
discretion to impose a different and greater sanction for his actions and it
chose to do so. See Johnson v. UCBR, 744 A.2d 817,
821 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000); Seton Co. v. UCBR, 663 A.2d
296, 299 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
------------------------------------------
*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)
