Upland Borough v. UCBR, Upland Borough v. UCBR

Upland Borough (employer) seeks review of UCBR’s August 19, 2016 order affirming a Referee’s UC decision granting benefits to Nelson Ocasio (claimant); issue is whether UCBR’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence.
Claimant held full-time Police Chief from 2010 to 2016; February 17, 2016 performance review cited multiple managerial/financial issues.
On February 22, 2016, claimant ordered a lockdown during an ongoing investigation into alleged Council fraud, leading to tense exchange with the Mayor and claimant’s suspension.
February 23–24, 2016 proceedings involved suspension with intent to terminate; claimant later applied for UC benefits; Lancaster UC Service Center found him eligible under Section 402(e).
Referee upheld the eligibility; employer appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed; employer then appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the UCBR; judge noted substantial-evidence standard governs UC appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether UCBR findings are supported by substantial evidence	Borough contends the findings do not have substantial support	Ocasio contends substantial evidence supports the findings	Yes; UCBR findings are supported and binding on appeal
Willful misconduct—forcing a council member to resign	Borough argues claimant coerced Smith to resign	Ocasio argues claimant did not coerce; testimony supports non-coercive conduct	UCBR findings supported; no willful misconduct based on resignation
Willful misconduct—failure to investigate missing cameras	Borough asserts claimant should have investigated per expectations	Ocasio argues no order to investigate; lack of directive undermines willful misconduct	UCBR findings supported by Mitchell’s testimony; no willful misconduct for failure to investigate
Willful misconduct—filing charges against Peterson and insubordination	Borough argues allegations show willful misconduct	Ocasio contends these allegations unproven or credibly explained	UCBR conclusion consistent with record; no clear willful misconduct
Overall standard and outcome	Employer disputes substantial-evidence support	Record supports UCBR’s factual determinations	UCBR’s order affirmed; substantial-evidence standard applied

Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (substantial evidence governs UC findings; ultimate fact-finder standard)
Sanders v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (substantial evidence assessed in light most favorable to prevailing party)
McFadden v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 806 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (UCBR may accept or reject witness testimony in whole or in part)