Torres-Bobe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 A.3d 122

Claimant (Torres-Bobe) was terminated by Employer (American Tire & Wheel) for alleged sexual-harassment comments on January 14, 2014; Employer asserted willful misconduct under 43 P.S. §802(e).
Employer sought to have two witnesses (one, Peyton, a mechanic employed by a third-party vendor, TMS) testify by telephone; the Lancaster referee’s office authorized telephone participation and the hearing notice listed them as telephonic witnesses.
Claimant objected at hearing, arguing 34 Pa. Code §101.128 requires a compelling reason (e.g., >50 miles or other compelling employment/health/transportation reason) and that mere inconvenience or desire to preserve business relationships is insufficient.
Referee credited Peyton’s telephonic testimony (and other evidence) that Claimant directed obscenities at Peyton; Referee found Claimant committed willful misconduct and denied benefits.
The Board affirmed, holding a vendor/third‑party witness’s employment concerns (to avoid harming the vendor relationship) can constitute a compelling employment reason under §101.128 to permit telephone testimony. Claimant appealed.

Issue	Claimant's Argument	Employer/Board's Argument	Held
Whether §101.128’s “compelling … employment” reason requires more than inconvenience (e.g., proof of >50 miles or a substantial, real pressure) to allow telephone testimony	The phrase requires a real, substantial problem (analogous to "good cause"/"compelling reason" in other contexts); mere desire to preserve business goodwill is insufficient; telephone testimony denied Claimant due process and impaired cross-examination	Regulations include compelling employment reasons as a basis; allowing telephone testimony where a vendor’s business would be harmed is reasonable; procedural safeguards (identity verification, opportunity to question) protect due process	The Court held the vendor’s demonstrated risk to Employer’s business qualified as a compelling employment reason under §101.128 and telephone testimony was permissible; Board’s decision affirmed
Whether telephonic testimony should be stricken and, if so, whether record still supports willful misconduct	Telephonic testimony should be excluded for lack of compelling reason; without Peyton live, no substantial evidence supports willful misconduct	The record (Peyton’s telephonic testimony plus other testimony and documents) provided substantial evidence; regulations and practice permit telephonic testimony when justified	Court deferred to Board; telephone testimony stood and substantial evidence supports willful misconduct finding

Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829 (Pa.) (explains “real and substantial” pressure standard in related voluntary‑quit context)
Pilon v. Pilon, 492 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super.) (distinguishes "good reasons" from "compelling reasons")
Harkness v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 920 A.2d 162 (Pa.) (describing informal, summary nature of unemployment proceedings and policy against imposing burdensome procedures)
McKnight v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 9 A.3d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (deference to Board interpretation of its regulations)
Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 A.3d 699 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition and review standard for abuse of discretion)