Bertram v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
206 A.3d 79
Pa. Commw. Ct.2019Background
- Claimant Sean J. Bertram worked as a full-time car salesperson from 1993; last day worked listed as January 19, 2017; Employer removed his files January 20, 2017 and Employer’s UC questionnaire cited poor sales as reason for separation.
- Employer’s later oral statement and the UC Service Center asserted Claimant was dismissed for willful misconduct (insubordination) after Claimant allegedly called General Sales Manager John Katsaros a “liar” during a January 23, 2017 meeting.
- At hearing Katsaros testified he terminated Claimant for repeated insubordination culminating in the January 23 meeting; Claimant denied calling Katsaros a liar and produced a sales plan submitted earlier.
- Co-worker Keri Malone testified Katsaros announced Claimant’s termination at a January 20, 2017 sales meeting and that Claimant’s customer matter that day was handled by others; she relayed the announcement to Claimant before January 23.
- The Referee found Claimant was fired on January 23 for calling Katsaros a liar and disqualified him under 43 P.S. §802(e); the Board adopted the Referee’s decision without discussion.
- The Commonwealth Court majority vacated and remanded, holding the Board capriciously disregarded material, conflicting evidence (Malone’s testimony, Employer’s UC questionnaire, Claimant’s business plan, removal of files) and failed to resolve conflicts with explanatory credibility findings.
Issues
| Issue | Bertram's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board capriciously disregarded competent, relevant evidence | Bertram: Board ignored Malone’s testimony and documentary evidence showing he was terminated Jan. 20 for poor sales, so conduct at Jan. 23 meeting is irrelevant | Board: Referee implicitly made credibility determinations; findings supported by credited testimony that Bertram called Katsaros a liar | Majority: Yes; Board capriciously disregarded critical evidence and failed to explain credibility/resolution of conflicts — vacated and remanded |
| Whether calling a supervisor a "liar" constituted willful misconduct under 43 P.S. §802(e) | Bertram: Even if said, he was not an employee at that point if already discharged; poor sales was stated reason and does not constitute willful misconduct | Employer: The recorded incident of calling manager a liar is insubordination/willful misconduct warranting disqualification | Not finally resolved on merits — factfinder must reassess on remand after resolving conflicts |
| Adequacy of Referee/Board findings for meaningful appellate review | Bertram: Referee failed to address crucial testimony and documents, so appellate review is hindered | Board: Regulations permit brevity; implicit credibility findings suffice; referee credited testimony supporting decision | Majority: Referee’s boilerplate credibility statement inadequate here given overwhelming contradictory evidence; remand required |
| Standard for overturning agency decision for capricious disregard | Bertram: Agency must explain why it accepted/rejected key evidence | Board: No statutory requirement in UC law to issue a detailed reasoned decision; adoption of referee suffices when evidence supports findings | Majority: Apply capricious-disregard standard (willful disregard of competent evidence); here standard met and reversal warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Wise v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 111 A.3d 1256 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (defines capricious disregard as willful refusal to consider competent, relevant evidence and requires explanation when conflicts exist)
- Leon E. Wintermyer, Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board (Marlowe), 812 A.2d 478 (Pa. 2002) (appellate review must consider capricious disregard of competent evidence)
- Bentley v. Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Cosmetology, 179 A.3d 1196 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (agency may not adopt findings while ignoring or rejecting entire strands of mitigating evidence without explanation)
- Sipps v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 181 A.2d 479 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (existence of evidence supporting a different result does not insulate a finding unless the credited evidence lacks support)
- Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (review focuses on whether evidence supports the findings actually made, not whether other findings also could be supported)