M. Russello v. UCBR, M. Russello v. UCBR

Petitioner Michele Russello was employed as a full-time member services representative by Sun Federal Credit Union from March 28, 2016, to June 9, 2016.
Claimant was found ineligible for unemployment benefits by the Service Center, and a Referee upheld that determination.
Evidence showed multiple cash drawer incidents: $10 short on April 22, 2016; $11 short on May 20, 2016; and a May 27, 2016 withdrawal of $11 from a member’s account without permission.
Claimant admitted to the April 22 error but disputed instructions and asserted lack of intent and insufficient training.
The Board affirmed the Referee’s decision, concluding willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Employer discharged Claimant on June 9, 2016 for violation of its cash drawer policy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s credibility determinations are proper	Russello contends Montout lied about May 27, 2016 actions	Board credited Montout’s testimony as credible	Credibility given to Montout sustained; cannot be overturned on appeal
Whether Claimant's May 27 withdrawal constitutes willful misconduct	Mistakes were due to inexperience, not willful misconduct	Withdrawal was intentional disobedience of cash drawer policy	Willful misconduct established; withdrawal without permission supported finding
Whether Claimant proved good cause for violating the policy	Co-worker’s prior handling of shorts shows good cause; training occurred	Cannot use co-worker’s conduct as good cause; retraining occurred; not justified	No good cause; policy violation found to be willful misconduct

Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate fact-finder; credibility matters tested on review)
Greif v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 450 A.2d 229 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (Board may accept or reject testimony in part)
Walsh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (Willful misconduct burden on employer; good cause if justifiable under circumstances)
Tongel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (Requires proof that claimant’s actions were intentional or deliberate)
Heitczman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (Disobedience of direct instruction can constitute willful misconduct)
Rung v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 689 A.2d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (Poor work performance may be distinguishable when it involves clear policy violations and concealment)
Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (Defines willful misconduct components and policy violation analysis)