PA Fish and Boat Commission v. UCBR
1962 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 31, 2017Background
- Claimant Ronald J. Evancho worked as a full‑time Waterways Conservation Officer from 1995 until his May 25, 2016 discharge by the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission.
- Employer discharged Claimant for (1) alleged falsification of time/activity records (discrepancies between Claimant’s reports and third‑party data) and (2) discarding his old body armor instead of turning it in.
- Employer had policies prohibiting falsification and requiring proper care/use of Commission property; Claimant knew of the policies. A separate Body Armor Policy required inspection and reporting of damage but did not explicitly require return of unusable vests.
- Evidence showed no time code for travel, common rounding of times, periodic tablet/synchronization failures, Claimant’s prior suspension (three days in 2014), and that Claimant’s vest was over five years old, worn, and malodorous; Claimant discarded it after receiving replacement armor.
- A referee found Claimant’s explanations credible and concluded discrepancies were honest mistakes and discarding the vest did not violate an unequivocal rule; the Board affirmed. Employer appealed arguing the conduct amounted to willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Employer) | Defendant's Argument (Claimant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discarding the old body armor was willful misconduct | Employer: Policy required care/use of property and forbids removal/misappropriation; Claimant knew rules and should have turned in vest; discharge supports denial of benefits | Claimant: Vest was unusable, not on inventory list, Body Armor Policy permits replacement and does not require return of unusable vests; he disposed of it in good faith | Held: Not willful misconduct — rule did not clearly prohibit disposal, Claimant had proper possession and credible explanation; Employer failed to prove deliberate violation |
| Whether discrepancies in time/activity reports constitute willful misconduct (falsification) | Employer: Discrepancies contradicted by gas/EZ‑Pass records; Employer proved rule and violation; mistakes alone do not excuse failure to accurately report time | Claimant: No travel code, tablet/software sync failures, sometimes rode with others, common rounding, admitted some honest mistakes and provided credible explanations | Held: Not willful misconduct — Board’s credibility findings accepted; circumstances (no travel code, equipment problems) make explanations reasonable; Employer failed to prove deliberate falsification |
Key Cases Cited
- Reading Area Water Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 137 A.3d 658 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (standard of review and willful misconduct as question of law)
- Eshbach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition of willful misconduct and consideration of all circumstances)
- McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause once employer proves prima facie willful misconduct)
- Eagle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 659 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (employer must prove existence of rule and its violation for rule‑based willful misconduct)
- Chester Community Charter School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 138 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (inadvertent or negligent rule violations may not constitute willful misconduct)
- Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (prevailing party entitled to benefit of all reasonable inferences)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (appellate court must accept Board’s credibility determinations)
- Wilkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 502 A.2d 283 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (negligent safety violations and repeated warnings can support willful misconduct; distinguished on facts)