D. Harbel v. UCBR
438 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Claimant Dale Harbel worked as a full-time sales engineer for C & T Machining from 2003 until March 31, 2016, earning a $37,000 base salary.
- Employer informed Harbel on March 30 and again on March 31, 2016 that he would not receive his yearly bonus due to missing/incomplete inventory information for which Harbel was responsible.
- On March 30 Harbel threw inventory paperwork on the GM’s desk with handwritten notations; on March 31 he told the GM he would “get his bonus one way or another,” later asked to be laid off, said he would not quit, and then said he would sit at his desk or stay home and not perform duties.
- The GM followed Harbel into the warehouse and terminated him effective immediately for insubordinate language and refusal to perform duties.
- The UC Service Center, a Referee, and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) denied Harbel benefits under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct); Harbel appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Harbel's Argument | Employer/UCBR Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCBR’s decision is supported by substantial evidence | UCBR lacked sufficient evidence that Harbel committed willful misconduct | Testimony (GM) and record show Harbel refused to work and blamed others; factual findings support discharge for willful misconduct | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports UCBR findings |
| Whether Harbel’s statement refusing to work was made in the heat of the moment and thus not willful misconduct | Statement was impulsive and reasonable given denial of bonus; should not rise to willful misconduct | Harbel had been told the day before; refusal to work after a "cooling-off period" is not justifiable | Affirmed — refusal to perform duties was not justifiable and constituted willful misconduct |
| Whether this was actually a voluntary quit/constructive discharge | Argued constructive quit due to necessitous and compelling reason to quit | Referee/UCBR found Harbel denied resigning and expressly said he would not quit; employer discharged him | Affirmed — treated as discharge for willful misconduct, not voluntary quit |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (definitions of willful misconduct)
- Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (UCBR is ultimate fact-finder; substantial-evidence standard)
- Frumento v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 351 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1976) (conduct justifiable/reasonable under circumstances negates willful misconduct)
- Sanders v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (definition and scope of substantial evidence)