D.A. Kolcun v. UCBR
2079 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 29, 2017Background
- Claimant Douglas Kolcun was a Sofa Mart store manager from 2008 until his termination on July 30, 2016 for unprofessional treatment of staff and failure to follow his work schedule.
- Employer presented multiple written warnings (March 2015, December 2015, March 31, 2016) documenting poor leadership, demeaning conduct toward staff, mishandling deposits, and repeated failure to work scheduled hours.
- Employer’s regional manager testified Claimant created the schedule, was required to work ~42 hours/week (minimum 40), was late multiple times, and missed/called off shifts without approval in July 2016.
- A UC Service Center initially awarded benefits; a Referee reversed and denied benefits for willful misconduct under Section 402(e).
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirmed the Referee: it found insufficient corroborated evidence for the negative-work-environment charge but concluded substantial evidence supported discharge for disregarding work schedule despite warnings.
- Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which reviewed whether willful misconduct was proved and affirmed the UCBR’s denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant committed willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Kolcun argued he was not discharged for neglecting manager duties or for unexcused absences; Employer raised schedule noncompliance only after benefits were awarded | Employer argued repeated warnings and records show Claimant repeatedly arrived late, worked fewer hours than required, and called off without approval, undermining managerial authority | Court held Employer met burden on schedule-related misconduct; UCBR properly found willful misconduct and denied benefits |
| Whether UCBR erred by relying on uncorroborated hearsay about creating a negative work environment | Kolcun contended evidence of a hostile work environment was uncorroborated and thus insufficient | Employer relied on staff complaints and prior written warnings documenting demeaning conduct | Court agreed UCBR found the negative-environment allegations insufficiently corroborated, but that did not negate the schedule-related misconduct finding |
| Whether Claimant showed good cause for failing to follow schedule | Kolcun claimed personal/family issues and that he maintained roughly 40 hours after warnings | Employer pointed to explicit warnings, required hours, and repeated late arrivals/calls off | Court held Claimant failed to prove his conduct was justifiable or reasonable; no good cause found |
| Whether extra-record medical evidence could be considered on appeal | Kolcun submitted medical records on reconsideration | UCBR and court noted procedural rules prohibit consideration of extra-record evidence on appeal | Court declined to consider those records and proceeded on the administrative record |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (definitions and elements of willful misconduct)
- Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burden shift to claimant to show good cause)
- Scott v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 105 A.3d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (question of willful misconduct is one of law)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (UCBR as ultimate fact-finder; substantial-evidence standard)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (chronic tardiness after warnings can constitute willful misconduct)