N. Shrieves, Jr. v. UCBR
93 C.D. 2020
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 11, 2020Background
- Claimant Nathaniel Shrieves worked for Philadelphia Gas Works from 2009 until his discharge on July 17, 2019 after a June 28, 2019 service call at a Media Street residence.
- Employer alleged Claimant failed to follow its Call Ahead procedure and AIMS special instruction to "call when en route," and falsely recorded he could not complete the assignment; Employer produced GPS, AIMS timesheet and phone logs showing a call after he left the address.
- Claimant applied for UC benefits; the Department issued a Notice of Determination denying benefits under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct). Claimant appealed and subpoenaed employer policies and records; Employer produced Call Ahead bulletins, AIMS records, phone/GPS logs, and a last-chance agreement.
- At hearing Employer’s Labor Manager testified Claimant knew the Call Ahead rule; Claimant testified he could not get reception en route and called only after arriving; the Referee and Board credited Employer’s evidence and denied benefits as willful misconduct.
- Claimant argued on appeal that (1) he lacked due process because the Department’s notice did not specify the Call Ahead rule (it referenced AIMS special instructions) and the Referee left the room while Employer’s counsel "coached" a witness; and (2) Employer failed to prove a major-work-rule violation or deliberate misconduct given his phone problems and intervening circumstances.
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed: it found no due process violation (no surprise or prejudice; factual basis was the same) and concluded substantial evidence and credibility findings supported willful misconduct and denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was denied due process by insufficient notice and hearing irregularities | Notice named failure to follow AIMS "special instructions," not the Call Ahead policy; counsel was unprepared; Referee left and Employer counsel coached witness | Notice and termination letter put Claimant on notice of the factual basis (failure to call customer); Call Ahead and AIMS special instructions describe the same conduct; any in‑hearing exchange was on the record and caused no prejudice | No due process violation; Board properly considered the same factual basis and Claimant was not surprised or prejudiced |
| Whether Claimant’s failure to call the customer constituted willful misconduct | Employer did not prove Call Ahead was a major work‑rule or that Claimant acted deliberately; phone service and on-site events excused his conduct | Employer proved existence, reasonableness, and Claimant’s awareness of the Call Ahead rule; GPS/phone logs and discipline records undermined Claimant’s explanation; last‑chance agreement warned of termination for major rule violations | Substantial evidence and credibility findings support willful misconduct; benefits properly denied under §402(e) |
Key Cases Cited
- Oyetayo v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 110 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (defines willful misconduct and employer's initial burden)
- Serrano v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 149 A.3d 435 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility determinations will not be reweighed on review)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board's credibility and evidentiary weight determinations are entitled to deference)
- Sterling v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 474 A.2d 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (notice must list sufficient factual charges so claimant can prepare; surprise requires remand)
- Hanover Concrete Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 402 A.2d 720 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (Board may consider only issues delineated in the Department's determination)
- Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 77 A.3d 699 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (no remand required where critical factual basis remains the same and no prejudice shown)
- Leone v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 885 A.2d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (due process in UC proceedings requires notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Knox v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 317 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (due process must be afforded in unemployment compensation proceedings)
- Graham v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 840 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (employer need not give prior warning that a deliberate violation may result in termination)
- Chartiers Cmty. Mental Health & Retardation Ctr. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 134 A.3d 1165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (appellate review does not permit reweighing evidence or substituting findings)