W. Schiavo, III v. UCBR
1880 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Sep 1, 2017Background
- Claimant William Schiavo was a FedEx Freight operations manager who handled Kronos timekeeping and Kronos Edit Forms for subordinates.
- On April 8, 2016, Claimant completed a Kronos Edit Form for employee Martin Robert recording a meal break and showing Robert’s printed name and signature; Employer’s witness testified the handwriting on both portions matched Claimant’s.
- Employer investigated, terminated Claimant on May 3, 2016 for falsifying the form, and the Service Center denied Claimant unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. §802(e).
- At the Referee hearing, Employer’s witness testified Claimant admitted forging Robert’s signature; Claimant testified he filled the form as a personal reminder after a phone call with Robert and intended Robert to sign it later.
- The Referee and Board credited Employer’s witness over Claimant, found Claimant falsified and forged the Kronos Edit Form and admitted doing so, and disqualified him from benefits for willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Findings that Claimant falsified and forged coworker’s Kronos Edit Form are supported by substantial evidence | Claimant: He completed the form only as a reminder after confirming hours by phone; he did not intend submission and did not forge the signature | Employer: Witness testified Claimant admitted filling out and signing the employee’s portion; handwriting matched; Claimant was responsible | Board/Court: Findings supported; credibility resolved for Employer; substantial evidence supports falsification and forgery |
| Whether Claimant’s conduct constitutes willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Claimant: Lacked intent to deceive or submit form to payroll, so no willful misconduct | Employer: Falsification of employer records and forging a signature shows disregard of employer’s standards | Board/Court: Willful misconduct proven—intent to deceive not required; conscious indifference/reckless disregard suffices |
Key Cases Cited
- Stage Road Poultry Catchers v. Department of Labor and Industry, Office of Unemployment Compensation, Tax Services, 34 A.3d 876 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (defines substantial evidence standard on review)
- Ross v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 861 A.2d 1019 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (explains willful misconduct definitions)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (framework for willful misconduct categories)
- Henninger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 468 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (falsification of time records constitutes willful misconduct)
- Lee v. Temple University (Personnel), 363 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (conscious indifference to wrongdoing can establish willful misconduct even without intent to defraud)
- Schooley v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 402 A.2d 1109 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (changing coworkers’ time records can be willful misconduct)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (credibility and resolution of evidentiary conflicts are for the Board)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (when disqualifying on a rule violation, employer must prove existence, reasonableness, and violation of rule)