Department of Transportation v. State Civil Service Commission
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 78
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Santo Bocchinfuso, a 20-year DOT senior civil engineer supervisor with no prior discipline, was arrested July 1–2, 2012 for DUI and assault-related charges and was served with a PFA order.
- Bocchinfuso notified his supervisor (Lang) on July 2 that he had been arrested and would be out, and spoke again describing the alleged sledgehammer incident.
- After release to New Jersey, Bocchinfuso was re-arrested July 3 for violating the PFA and remained detained in Cape May County until July 16 due to scheduling and extradition, during which he missed work July 5–16.
- DOT treated his absence as AWOL, relied on Manual M530.7 (AWOL policy) and removed him August 30, 2012 for being AWOL more than five days; DOT had also referenced the Governor’s Code in suspension/discipline letters.
- The State Civil Service Commission reversed, holding DOT should have suspended Bocchinfuso without pay as of July 2 under Part III.2 of the Governor’s Code (employee charged with a felony) and thus failed to prove just cause for removal.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed, finding DOT knew or should have known of the felony charge on July 2, that the Governor’s Code (a codified regulation) controls over Manual M530.7 (a management directive), and that removal was not merit-related just cause.
Issues
| Issue | Bocchinfuso's Argument | DOT's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DOT knew or should have known of felony charge by July 2, 2012 | DOT had actual/constructive notice from calls and office notifications; thus Governor’s Code suspension applied as of July 2 | DOT claimed no written verification of felony charge by July 2 | Court: substantial evidence DOT knew/should have known on July 2; suspension under Governor’s Code required |
| Whether Governor’s Code or AWOL policy governs discipline for arrest/incarceration | Governor’s Code (4 Pa.Code §7.173) is a codified regulation and governs suspension when employee is charged with a felony | DOT: AWOL policy (Manual M530.7) controls and justifies removal after 5 days AWOL | Court: Governor’s Code (regulation) takes precedence over Manual M530.7 (management directive) |
| Whether AWOL for >5 days alone establishes just cause for removal | Bocchinfuso: absence resulted from extraordinary, largely uncontrollable circumstances; removal not tied to job performance or fitness | DOT: violation of AWOL rule is sufficient to establish just cause for removal | Court: Removal must be merit-related; here absence was due to circumstances beyond control and employee’s record was exemplary — DOT failed to show just cause |
| Proper remedy for employer when employee is criminally charged but not convicted | Suspend without pay pending resolution (Governor’s Code / §803 suspension authority) | Remove for AWOL after 5 days per Manual | Court: Suspension under Governor’s Code/§803 was appropriate; discharge was improper and unsupported by just cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Woods v. State Civil Service Commission, 590 Pa. 337, 912 A.2d 803 (2006) (arrest alone unrelated to job does not establish just cause; suspension pending resolution appropriate)
- Cutler v. State Civil Service Commission, 924 A.2d 706 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (management directives lack force of law compared with codified regulations)
- Zielinski v. Luzerne County Assistance Office, 107 Pa. Cmwlth. 414, 528 A.2d 1028 (1987) (indefinite incarceration can justify removal when employee unavailable to work)
- Long v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, 535 A.2d 1233 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (appointing authority bears burden to prove just cause and substance of charges)
- Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole v. State Civil Service Commission (Manson), 4 A.3d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (standard of review: factual findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence; just-cause determination is legal question)