W.B. Boyle, Jr. v. UCBR
303 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Claimant (William B. Boyle, Jr.) was a territory salesman for Exeter Supply from Feb 2005 to Oct 28, 2015, paid salary plus commission and required to work from 8:00 a.m. until at least 4:00 p.m.
- When traveling with specialized product salespersons (Specialty Salespeople), Claimant was required to schedule a full day of sales calls or notify the general manager or sales manager if he could not.
- On three dates in October 2015 (Oct. 7, 15, and 27), Claimant traveled with Specialty Salespeople but made his last calls early (between about 12:00–2:00 p.m.) and did not notify management he lacked a full day of calls.
- Employer terminated Claimant on Oct. 28, 2015 for ending workdays early and failing to fill days while with Specialty Salespeople; Claimant applied for unemployment compensation (UC).
- A UC service center initially found Claimant eligible; after a Referee hearing and UCBR review the Referee and UCBR denied benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e) for willful misconduct; Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s early departures and failure to notify management constituted willful misconduct disqualifying him from UC | Boyle: He did not abandon work; he returned home to do paperwork/prepare quotes and sometimes appointments were cancelled; he did not “terminate” days early in substance | Employer: Boyle violated clear directives to schedule full days or notify managers when days could not be filled; his admitted failures justify discharge for willful misconduct | Court: Affirmed UCBR — substantial evidence supports finding of willful misconduct; claimant failed to show good cause for noncompliance |
| Admissibility of documentary evidence Claimant asserted (car tow, cancelled appointment) | Boyle: He could produce towing/repair and client cancellation documents to justify early departures | Employer/UCBR: Documents were not timely submitted per hearing notice and 34 Pa. Code §101.130(e); thus not admitted | Court: Documents not in certified record; UCBR properly excluded them; Court cannot consider new evidence |
| Procedural fairness of telephone hearing | Boyle: Participation by phone disadvantaged him compared to in-person testimony | Employer/UCBR: Proceeding complied with notice; claimant consented to phone hearing | Court: Boyle had previously agreed; no procedural error shown; UCBR’s credibility findings stand |
Key Cases Cited
- Docherty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 898 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct and, for rule violations, to prove rule exists and was violated; claimant then must show good cause)
- Navickas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 787 A.2d 284 (Pa. 2001) (consider all circumstances and reasons for noncompliance when assessing willful misconduct)
- Rebel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 723 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1998) (same principle on evaluating claimant’s reasons and circumstances)
- Goppman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 845 A.2d 946 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (UCBR is factfinder; credibility and conflict resolution are for the board)
- Sanders v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (substantial evidence standard described)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 1028 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (procedures for telephone testimony and pre-submission of documents)
- Pa. Turnpike Comm’n v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 991 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (appellate court may not consider evidence outside the certified record)
- Stugart v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 85 A.3d 606 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (scope of appellate review: substantial evidence, constitutional claims, or errors of law)