Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
55 A.3d 186
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant worked as vehicle detailer for Grand Sport Auto Body from 2008 to 2011.
- Employer warned Claimant about excessive tardiness on June 17, 2010 and December 27, 2010.
- Between Sept 14, 2010 and Mar 10, 2011 Claimant was tardy or absent without a valid excuse 19 times.
- Claimant took approved vacation March 14-21, 2011 for his wedding in Mexico; return flight rebooked for March 22, 2011.
- Claimant informed Employer March 21, 2011 of being stuck in Mexico; he was suspended and later discharged March 26, 2011 for attendance problems.
- Referee and Board found the final absence justified, but the court reversed, emphasizing pattern of unexcused absenteeism.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willful misconduct can be found from a pattern of absenteeism | Employer urged pattern shows willful misconduct | Claimant argues last absence alone justified benefits eligibility | Yes; pattern of absenteeism supports willful misconduct; last absence alone insufficient |
| Whether the last justified absence defeats willful misconduct | Last absence justified breaks chain of misconduct | Board erred by focusing only on last absence | Pattern controls; final justified absence does not negate willful misconduct |
| Did the Board properly weigh credibility and the full attendance history | Board credibility favored Claimant's last absence as justified | Employer witnesses credible about prior absences and warnings | Board's credibility determinations supported reversal; history shows willful misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 66 Pa.Cmwlth. 492 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1982) (habitual tardiness can establish willful misconduct)
- Dotson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 57 Pa.Cmwlth. 248 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (absenteeism pattern may deny benefits absent good cause)
- Runkle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 104 Pa.Cmwlth. 275 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1987) (final absence with lack of medical justification can control outcome)
- Adept Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 62 Pa.Cmwlth. 566 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1981) (transportation problems and proper reporting can negate willful misconduct)
- Docherty v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 898 A.2d 1205 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2006) (burden-shifting and de novo review in willful misconduct cases)
- Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (definition and burden to prove willful misconduct)
- McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 155 Pa.Cmwlth. 267 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (good cause question after willful misconduct burden shift)