Washington County v. UCBR, Washington County v. UCBR

Background

Claimant (CNA) was terminated after failing to timely attend a mandatory Department of Health in-service training on May 19, 2016; last day worked June 2, 2016.
Employer had progressive discipline for missed mandatory trainings; Claimant had reached the pre-termination steps and was warned her job was in jeopardy.
Initial notice set the May 19 session as 11:30 a.m.–2:00 p.m. with no admittance after 1:00 p.m.; a supervisor-authorized reminder posted May 18 incorrectly listed the session as 11:00 a.m.–2:30 p.m.
Relying on the May 18 reminder, Claimant arrived between 1:20 and 1:25 p.m. and was denied admittance per the original schedule; several coworkers were likewise denied.
Referee found willful misconduct and denied UC benefits; the Board credited Claimant’s testimony, found her reliance on the supervisor-posted reminder reasonable, reversed the referee, and granted benefits.
Employer appealed to Commonwealth Court arguing the Board ignored substantial evidence of willful misconduct and Claimant should have sought clarification of the conflicting notices.

Issues

Issue	Employer's Argument	Claimant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant's failure to attend the May 19 session constituted willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e)	Claimant violated a known work rule, had prior violations, and unreasonably relied on an unofficial/incorrect reminder; should have clarified the discrepancy	Claimant reasonably relied on a supervisor-authorized reminder with incorrect times; her late arrival was inadvertent, not willful	Board’s conclusion upheld: reliance was reasonable; failure was inadvertent, not willful misconduct
Whether the Board improperly disregarded the referee’s findings	Board is sole factfinder; Employer contends referee's findings supported willful misconduct	Claimant’s testimony credited by Board; Board weighed credibility and resolved conflicts	Court held Board, not referee, is ultimate factfinder; Board’s credibility determinations control and were supported by substantial evidence
Whether prior disciplinary history made the May 19 absence willful misconduct	Employer: termination was culmination of prior discipline; employer’s evidence shows progressive discipline culminating in discharge	Claimant: termination was triggered by the single May 19 incident and that incident must be judged by circumstances	Court treated the May 19 incident as the operative act; prior history noted but May 19 conduct evaluated and found inadvertent
Whether employee must seek clarification when presented with conflicting notices	Employer: Claimant had notice of discrepancy and should have inquired	Claimant: supervisor-posted reminder reasonably signaled a change; she reasonably relied on it	Court held reliance reasonable under circumstances; no willful misconduct for failing to double-check

Key Cases Cited

Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (defines willful misconduct standards)
Eshbach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (inadvertent rule violations may not be willful misconduct)
Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (employee actions judged in light of all circumstances)
McLean v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 383 A.2d 533 (Pa. 1978) (whether conduct is willful misconduct is a question of law)
Morgan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 108 A.3d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (Board, not referee, is ultimate factfinder; credibility and weight are Board province)
Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (contrast: employer discharged for long history of tardiness; court may consider history when discharge based on pattern)
Salamak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 497 A.2d 951 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (unchallenged Board findings of fact are binding on appeal)