M.E. Dzikowski v. UCBR
1745 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Jan 5, 2018Background
- Claimant Michael E. Dzikowski worked for Wyndham Hotel Management as a stationary engineer and was responsible for completing pool and spa logs; he was discharged in May 2016 for allegedly falsifying those logs.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation; the local service center denied benefits based on his reported falsification and Claimant appealed.
- At the referee hearing Employer did not appear; Claimant testified he did not falsify records, that he followed common practice, and that he requested but did not receive training.
- The referee found insufficient evidence of willful misconduct and allowed benefits; Employer appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board).
- The Board concluded Claimant admitted falsifying the logs and—finding no credible good cause—held Claimant ineligible under Section 402(e) for willful misconduct; Claimant petitioned for judicial review.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed the Board, holding Employer failed to prove willful misconduct and that Claimant’s conduct was reasonable given lack of training, common workplace practice, and Employer’s absence from the hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Dzikowski's Argument | Board/Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Claimant admitted falsifying logs | Record contains no affirmative admission; Board relied on negative inference and credibility rulings | Claimant admitted falsification and therefore committed willful misconduct | Court: No; record lacks an admission and negative evidence/credibility alone is insufficient to prove willful misconduct |
| Whether Employer met its burden to prove willful misconduct under §402(e) | Claimant acted per common practice, lacked training, and had good cause | Employer claims falsification of material job function establishes willful misconduct | Court: Employer failed to present evidence at hearing; did not prove existence/notice/enforcement of a rule or bad faith conduct |
| Whether Claimant’s actions fit the court’s four-part willful misconduct test | Argues actions show no wanton disregard, no deliberate rule violation, reasonable behavior given circumstances, and no intentional negligence | Employer treats knowing falsification of material job duty as per se willful misconduct | Court: Claimant’s conduct did not meet any of the four prongs given common practice, lack of training, and absence of employer proof |
| Whether Claimant had good cause for his conduct | Good cause from requests for training, common practice, and lack of notice of rule | No good cause; falsification of records is material and indefensible | Court: Claimant had good cause; actions were justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Vockie v. General Motors Corp., Chevrolet Div., 66 F.R.D. 57 (E.D. Pa. 1975) (definition and import of an admission)
- Kyu Son Yi, DVM v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine, 960 A.2d 864 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (negative evidence cannot alone support a positive factual finding)
- Pennsylvania State Board of Medical Education & Licensure v. Schireson, 61 A.2d 343 (Pa. 1948) (same principle regarding negative evidence)
- Aversa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 52 A.3d 565 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (adverse credibility findings are not, by themselves, substantial evidence)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2002) (definition and standards for willful misconduct in unemployment compensation law)
- Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct and, when alleging rule violation, must prove existence, reasonableness, claimant knowledge, and violation)