T. Webb v. UCBR
T. Webb v. UCBR - 2137 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Webb, a full-time behavioral health associate, was employed from Dec. 14, 2015 to July 21, 2016 and was discharged after an incident involving her overnight rounds.
- Employer's written "Rounds" policy required entering patient rooms, observing rise/fall of chest, counting respirations, and confirming movement; Webb signed an orientation checklist acknowledging the policy.
- Two coworkers reported seeing Webb sleeping in the day room on July 18, 2016; the referee deemed that hearsay and credited Webb's denial of sleeping.
- Employer reviewed video surveillance and HR testimony that Webb only peered into rooms and did not properly perform fifteen-minute rounds.
- Referee found Webb violated the rounds policy; the Board adopted the referee’s decision and denied unemployment compensation under Section 402(e) for willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Webb's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Webb was discharged for willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e) | Webb: She did not sleep on duty and performed rounds as trained; employer changed reasons and relied on inconsistent testimony; handbook requires retraining for mistakes | Employer: Webb knowingly violated the written rounds policy (acknowledged at orientation); video review showed improper rounds; failure to properly round risks patient safety and supports immediate termination | Held: Substantial evidence supports that Webb deliberately violated a reasonable rounds policy; this constituted willful misconduct and made her ineligible for UC benefits |
| Whether employer was bound to its initial termination reason (sleeping) and improperly raised new reasons at hearing | Webb: Employer shifted reasons (from sleeping to improper rounds), so the new reason is improper | Employer: Discharge paperwork referenced both sleeping and failure to complete rounds; evidence at hearing showed rounds failure independent of sleeping allegation | Held: Employer’s discharge document included the rounds failure; raising and proving the rounds violation at hearing was permissible here |
| Admissibility/weight of testimony about video surveillance | Webb: HR witness was unfamiliar with the unit and gave inconsistent statements; testimony about video is unreliable hearsay | Employer: Witness’s firsthand description of non-assertive video conduct is admissible and credible for the Board to weigh | Held: Firsthand testimony about non-assertive video conduct is not hearsay; credibility determinations are for the Board and were properly made |
| Whether employer followed progressive-discipline protocol (warning/retraining) before termination | Webb: Handbook says mistakes warrant retraining; no warning or retraining was given | Employer: Policy lists patient neglect/abuse as grounds for immediate termination; improper rounds risking patient harm equals neglect | Held: The Board reasonably found the misconduct amounted to patient neglect, which could justify immediate termination without retraining |
Key Cases Cited
- Curran v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 752 A.2d 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Board is ultimate fact-finder; resolves credibility conflicts)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (definition and framework for willful misconduct analysis)
- Scott v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 105 A.3d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (employer generally bound by initial reason for discharge)
- Panaro v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 413 A.2d 772 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (employer must show the act was the actual reason for discharge)
- Yost v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (firsthand testimony about non-assertive videotape conduct is not hearsay)
- Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (definition of substantial evidence standard)