Albright Precision, Inc. v. UCBR
Albright Precision, Inc. v. UCBR - 1830 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Employer discharged Claimant for leaving early on July 14, 2016, after bereavement leave, claiming willful misconduct; Claimant alleged he had permission from Ernie (a supervisor-in-training) to leave early; Ernie was training to be floor supervisor and claimed no authority to grant leave; Board credited Claimant and found permission existed; Referee had found willful misconduct based on warnings for tardiness; Board reversed, crediting Claimant and finding no willful misconduct; Employer appealed, arguing Ernie had no supervisor status and no permission; Court affirmed Board’s substantial evidence findings and ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| whether discharge was for willful misconduct | Baloga: discharge due to permission to leave | Employer: leaving early without permission constitutes willful misconduct | No willful misconduct; Board’s findings credible—permission existed |
| whether Ernie had authority to grant permission | Claimant relied on Ernie’s authority | LaBelle testified Ernie not a supervisor; no permission shown | Substantial evidence supported Ernie’s authority to permit leaving |
| whether Board credibility determinations were supported by the record | Claimant’s testimony credible about permission | Employer challenged credibility of Ernie’s role | Board credibility findings supported by record; not an error of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (willful misconduct requires justifiable and reasonable actions under all circumstances)
- Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) ( Board improperly focused on last absence; distinguishable facts; not controlling here)
- Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (employer must prove awareness of work rule and intentional violation by claimant)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board as ultimate fact-finder; may substitute for referee on credibility)
- Kindrew v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 388 A.2d 801 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (standard for willful misconduct in context of conduct and justifications)