M.J. Baker v. UCBR, 678 C.D. 2017

Michael J. Baker (Claimant) worked for Ryder Integrated Logistics (Employer) as a warehouse operator from 1989 until discharged December 16, 2016; last day worked December 14, 2016.
Employer had a safety policy (trained biannually) requiring employees to park and exit vehicles to retrieve safety cones; three safety violations in 24 months could trigger termination; Claimant was on a Last Chance Agreement after prior violations.
On December 14, 2016, Claimant picked up a cone while operating a cart-type vehicle and, according to Employer, held the cone outside the vehicle while moving, striking and damaging an AGV sensor ($2,200 damage).
At the UC hearing Employer presented HR testimony, documents (Last Chance Agreement, prior write-ups), and photos; Claimant admitted awareness of the policy but disputed details and sought additional evidence and witnesses.
The Referee found Claimant violated the safety policy and reversed the UC Service Center decision; the Board affirmed, denied Claimant’s remand request to supplement the record, and concluded Claimant engaged in willful misconduct under Section 402(e).

Issue	Baker's Argument	Ryder's Argument	Held
Whether the Board abused discretion by denying remand to supplement the record	Baker argued he did not realize he needed evidence/witnesses and could produce audits, witnesses, and measurements	Ryder argued record was complete and evidence was available at initial hearing	Denial affirmed — no abuse of discretion because Baker did not show evidence was unavailable at hearing
Whether Employer proved existence/reasonableness of safety rule	Baker argued no written rule required exiting vehicle to retrieve cones	Ryder presented HR testimony and training showing the rule and practice	Finding of rule existence supported by substantial evidence — oral testimony and training suffice
Whether Claimant violated the safety rule (factual finding)	Baker disputed that he failed to exit vehicle and said he could not recall; no eyewitnesses	Ryder relied on HR testimony and Claimant’s prior admissions (oral interview)	Finding that Baker picked up cone while operating vehicle and damaged sensor is supported by substantial evidence
Whether Claimant’s conduct constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e) and whether he had good cause	Baker claimed actions were not intentional and sought to justify keeping production moving	Ryder showed known rule, Last Chance Agreement, and that violation caused damage	Held willful misconduct: deliberate violation of known rule causing damage; Baker failed to show good cause; UC benefits denied

Fisher v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 696 A.2d 895 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (Board has discretion to grant remand)
Flores v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 686 A.2d 66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (review of remand denial standard)
Curran v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 752 A.2d 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Board as factfinder and credibility determiner)
Graham v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 840 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (employer directive need not be written to support willful misconduct)
Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 648 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (definition of substantial evidence)
Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definition of willful misconduct and burden shifting)
Spirnak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 557 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
Ellis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (elements when willful misconduct is alleged based on rule violation)
Heitczman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (violation of known rule causing damage can be willful misconduct)
Docherty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 898 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (good cause inquiry assessed under attendant circumstances)