*1 mount interest in deterring incidents of

drunken driving and reiterated that a mo- GRIEB, Petitioner, Karen torist cannot Jersey use a New guilty plea with civil reservation to thwart a license

suspension.4 UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION REVIEW, BOARD OF

The trial court here noted that it Respondent. was Hession’s conviction upon entered his guilty plea that operative established the Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court of fact which authorized suspen the license sion, not procedure administrative Submitted on Briefs Dec. leading up Moreover, plea. to the Decided Jan. distinction that Hession raises between case, i.e., Bourdeev and the facts of his plea defendant’s in Bourdeev was order,

not reduced to an does not support argument that Bourdeev should not

control the outcome of this case. Nor is persuaded by Court Hession’s conten

tion that a defendant pleads guilty is

entitled to the bargain, benefit of his citing

criminal case law. DOT correctly notes

that under Full Faith and Credit

Clause another may state’s court not con

trol the evidence received a court in a

sister state in separate proceedings involv parties parties third to the former

state’s proceedings, citing Baker v. Gener

al Corp., Motors 522 U.S. 118 S.Ct. 139 L.Ed.2d 580 relying Thus

upon the decision in Bourdeev and those it,

that follow the Court concludes that the

trial court denied ap Hession’s

peal, and its order therefore is affirmed.

ORDER NOW,

AND this 26th January,

the order of the Court of Common Pleas of

Philadelphia County hereby is affirmed.

4. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not Clause (Michigan) the forum court’s .Credit require public policy a state to subordinate decree could not command obedience in an- within its borders to the laws of another state. jurisdiction other on a matter that the forum Corp., Baker v. General Motors 522 U.S. authority court prin- lacked to resolve. That (1998); 118 S.Ct. 139 L.Ed.2d 580 see ciple equally applicable here inasmuch as Jersey Opera also Flamer v. New Transit Bus Jersey power New had no to resolve the li- tions, Inc., Pa.Super. suspension proceeding Pennsyl- cense filed in (1992). Furthermore, in Baker the court ex controlling legislation. vania under its pressly held that under the Full Faith and *2 Wellsboro, Hebe, petition- for A.

William er. College, for Consiglio, B. State

David intervenor, Dis- College Area School State trict. DOYLE, Judge, and President

Before J., McGINLEY, J., COLINS, FRIEDMAN, J., PELLEGRINI, J., LEADBETTER, FLAHERTY, J. J. and McGINLEY, Judge. (Claimant) re- petitions

Karen Grieb decision of view of the (Board) of Review of ben- denial affirmed the referee’s which 402(e) of the Unem- efits under Section (Law).1 Compensation Law ployment amended, 802(e). Ex.Sess., (1937), § 43 P.S. as P.L. Second 1. Act of December facts, Board, by as found are as ployer’s property and violated it without follows: cause when she brought the three shot-

1. The Employer’s property claimant was employed last as a the car physical health and education drove to work on teacher 1999.3 College State Area School District Claimant contends that the Board erred (4 week) a part-time capacity days per *3 when it determined she committed willful per hour and $7.40 had been so em- misconduct when she inadvertently drove ployed from 1985 and her last day of her car Employer’s property at a 18,1999. work was October time it when contained the three shot- 2. The policy, of which the guns.4 aware, claimant was prohibits posses- weapons sions of replicas and of weap- Whether a claimant’s conduct in any ons school district building or on rises to the level of willful misconduct ais school property. subject of law to our review. Lee 15, 1999, 3. On the claimant Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation violated the employer’s weapons policy Review, Board 139 Pa.Cmwlth. of by transporting three shotguns onto (1991). A.2d 297 employer The bears the school property. burden proving of it discharged an 4. The three were visible in employee for willful City of the backseat of the claimant’s 1991 Ford Beaver Falls v. Unemployment Compen Taurus as such automobile parked sation Board on and the contents (1982). 441 A.2d 510 Willful misconduct is therein were passers visible to by [sic]. defined as conduct that represents a wan 5. The claimant is suspended without ton and willful disregard of an pay due to violation of interest, rules, deliberate violation of disre weapon policy. gard of standards of behavior which an 6. The claimant asserts that she was employee can rightfully expect from his moving her residence and that is the employee, negligence which manifests reason the were intent, culpability, wrongful design, evil Decision, 11, 2000, 1-2; Board February intentional and disregard substantial (R.R.) Reproduced Record at 6a-7a. the employer’s interest or

The Board obligations. determined that duties and Frick v. Unem was aware College ployment of State Area Compensation School Board of District’s (Employer) policy2 (1977). pro- which 31 Pa.Cmwlth. 375 A.2d 879 possession hibited the weapons on Em- bears the proving burden of Paragraph Employer's Weapons discharge school board voted to Claimant be- Policy provides: cause of this incident. because the College The State concerning discharge Area School District [Em- arbitration had not ployer] prohibits possession weapons occurred, yet Employer continued to maintain replicas weapons any school district suspended employ- status of a building, property, any on school Testimony, ee. Notes of December sponsored activity, any and in con- (N.T.) any at 8. The record does not indicate veyance providing transportation to or from change in Claimant’s status. sponsored activity. school or a school If schools, weapons are found in the the dis- unemployment compensa- 4.Our review in an appropriate trict steps will take all to re- tion case is limited to a determination of weapons carry move the out the rele- violated, rights whether constitutional were provisions vant of Act 26 of 1995. committed, errors of law were or essential College State Weapons Area School District findings supported by of fact are not substan- Policy at 1. Hospital Unemployment tial evidence. Lee hearing informed the referee at that, following suspension, Claimant's offered explanation, its of the work rule and the existence good cause proving satisfy her burden employer establishes Once the violation. Employer’s policy, claimant for a violation then shifts to the the burden shotguns were the three forgot that she good was for prove violation to work and she drove the car when Unemployment Compen Peak v. cause. We Employer’s property. on sation did that Claimant with the Board agree A.2d 1383 good cause. not establish Initially, Claimant contends unintentional, inadver Generally, weapons only applied on Employer’s policy rules employer’s work of an tent violations The Board to students and not to staff. How willful misconduct. not constitute do pos prohibited that the policy found to this rule ever, exception is an there proper Employer’s session of *4 jeop could an conduct where reveals that the ty. policy A review of the an ardize students, even prohibition is not limited to risk. public the at United place portion poli of the

though disciplinary the Refin Unemployment Compensation ing Co. v. only discipline the of stu cy addressed (Pa. 661 A.2d finding and not dents staff. Board’s Cmwlth.), allowance petition possessed weapons policy Employer that applied supported to Claimant is substantial evidence. the threat Employer established were shotguns Three public safety. to that even if Claimant next contends property, and left brought onto school her inad Employer’s policy, she violated throughout an unattended car plain view in vertent, policy one time violation of the to safe day. The threat the school It does not constitute willful misconduct. interest was self- ty Employer’s and the the undisputed Claimant in a has held case evident. This Court and that the property vehicle on school employee district that an involving a school shotguns. vehicle contained three visible gunpowder a vial of onto brought Employ It is clear that Claimant violated enough to was serious employer’s premises er’s work rale. The burden then shifted to inimical to the be classified as good Claimant to establish cause for the willful mis interests and constituted best rale. violation the work Unemployment Com Prior v. conduct. testified that she was Claimant Review, 52 Pa.Cmwlth. pensation Board belongings to a new process moving her 213, 415 seat apartment [of car] and “back affirm. Accordingly, we CD’s, personal was secured with a lot of things of that belongings, clothing, lamps, ORDER edge of the shotgun nature and a on the NOW, January, day 26th this AND at 5. and two on the floor.” N.T. back seat the order she loaded the car testified that of Review 14,1999, to plan and did not September is affirmed. above-captioned matter morning material until the next move the rainy and cold and she was because it was FRIEDMAN, dissenting. Judge, at until 11:30 a.m. not scheduled ordinary Under I dissent. respectfully morning the next circumstances, teach- that a a.m., agree I would substitute for anoth- called at 6:00 to unloaded takes three teacher, and er who drove to school er so she willful mis- has committed parking Employer’s vehicle in parked the unique because of in the vehicle. guns were forgot lot and reverse would circumstances at 6-7. N.T. of the Unemployment Compensa- questioned decision Claimant about the reasons for (UCBR) (N.T. tion Board of Review denying “lapse judgment.” at unemployment compensation 7.) benefits to responded that she inwas (Claimant). Karen Grieb proceedings course of eminent domain being forced out of her home earlier Claimant, According evening on the previously than she had been informed. 14,1999, she was in process Claimant also stated her mother was of moving her belongings to a new resi- (N.T. 7.) dying.1 Employer subsequent- at dence. moving Claimant was as a result of ly suspended pay.2 Claimant without losing her house an eminent domain (N.T. 5.) at proceeding for construction of Interstate (N.T. 6.) She loaded her car with supreme Our court has defined willful books, CDs, lamps, clothing, as well as misconduct as three shotguns; put unloaded one of an act of wanton or willful disregard of on the car’s back seat and the interest, the employer’s a deliberate vio- (N.T. 5, 6; other two on the floor. rules, lation of the a disre- 8.) late, Exhibit No. Because it was cold gard of standards of behavior which the rainy when she arrived her new right expect has a of an residence, she left the items in the car employee, negligence indicating an overnight. *5 disregard intentional of the Claimant intended to unload the items employe’s interest of the duties and morning the next before she went to work obligations to the employer. because she was not to report scheduled (N.T. 6.) However, work until 11:30 a.m. at Myers Unemployment at the next morning, 6:00 Claimant re 373, 378, Board 625 of telephone ceived a call from the State Col (1993) 622, A.2d (quoting 625 McLean v. lege Area School District (Employer) ask Unemployment Compensation Board of fill in immediately her to for another Review, 617, 533, 620, A.2d 383 535 . (N.T. 6.) accepted teacher at Claimant (1978)) added). (emphasis supreme Our assignment promptly drove to the explained court has that “an can- school, forgetting personal that her be not demonstrate willful misconduct longings, including weapons; the three ‘merely that an showing employee commit- (N.T. 8.) 6, 7, in were still at At act, ted negligent pres- a but instead must school, parked her car in a indicating ent evidence the conduct “very lot, parking secluded area” of the was of an intentional and deliberate na- ” members, only where other staff not stu 378, Myers, ture.’ 533 Pa. at 625 A.2d at dents, park, and she locked her car before 625 (quoting Bucher v. proceeding teaching to her assignment. Pa. Compensation Board 76 (N.T. 5-7.) approximately p.m., at At 2:45 282, 1241, (1983)). A.2d 463 1243 custodian, a school beside ‘negligence’ “Mere does not rise to the car, Claimant’s observed the in weapons level of ‘willful misconduct’ without Claimant’s car and alerted the school ad additional element of an intentional disre- (Claimant’s 7.) ministration. at brief gard of the interests.” Id. at days (Emphasis

On five after 379 n. 625 A.2d at 626 n. 3. incident, Employer’s superintendent original.) negligence an employee’s passed away 1. Claimant’s mother on Novem- dent. because the arbitration con- (N.T. 7.) ber at cerning discharge yet Claimant's had not oc- curred, Employer continued to maintain informed the referee at the De- suspended employ- Claimant in the status of a hearing following cember 1999 (N.T. 8.) ee. record does not The indicate suspension, Claimant’s board voted any change in Claimant’s status. discharge Claimant because of this inci- “mistakenly took the to school.” miscon does not rise to the level willful la.) added.) (R.R. degree (Emphasis “it is of ‘such a duct unless culpability, recurrence as to manifest unintentional, inadvertent vi- Generally, intent, design, or evil or show an wrongful rules do not olations of an work disregard intentional and substantial Re- willful misconduct.4 United constitute or of the employer’s interest ” Unemployment Com- fining Company v. obligations employer.’ duties and to the Review, 661 A.2d 520 pensation Board of (quoting Id. 625 A.2d at 625 Cole (Pa.Cmwlth.), denied, Pa. appeal 543 Unemployment Compensation man v. (1995). Nevertheless, simply A.2d 672 312 Board 407 a with “position because of Claimant’s (1979)). 130, 131-32 A.2d presence working district majority concludes that Claimant’s minors,” a held Claimant “to the UCBR un- inadvertently bringing conduct and, therefore, standard” concluded loaded one willful miscon- guilty I time constitutes willful misconduct. can- (UCBR’s 2.) so, In doing decision at duct. agree. I that the UCBR erred. believe Em- recognize Claimant violated Previously, we have held “teachers to ployer’s weapons policy. there due to the na higher standard conduct is no that the violation was unin- position with students.” Al ture of their tentional.3 transgression Unemployment Compensation temus v. unusually due to the stressful events (Pa. personal life and the fact that she was Cmwlth.1996), Pa. early called to school five and a half hours (1997).5 Reitmeyer See also emergency. because of a school The evi- Unemployment Compensation dence adduced at the before proceedings *6 177, A.2d 505 145 Pa.Cmwlth. 602 the referee unequivocally indicates (1992).6 However, have never held that we conduct was of an intention- Claimant’s one-time, a inadvertent act of misconduct Indeed, al or deliberate nature. neither by any employee consti disagreed the referee nor the a teacher or other UCBR with job solely the willful misconduct based on center’s statement tuted case-by-case Employer ty expulsion 3. on a basis. See admitted that Claimant "was District, process moving place Lyons to a different v. Penn Hills School 723 A.2d denied, high (Pa.Cmwlth.), residence and came to work at appeal Pa. 559 1073 forgetting that she had” the (1999). if the 740 A.2d 235 Questionnaire 9,¶ (Employer Ex- exception apply, it for the UCBR intended 6c.) hibit No. all of the circum- was bound to consider However, produced no stances. exception general rule 4. An to this exists operations have evidence as to how its could jeopard- where an conduct could public placed jeopardized or the at risk been place ize an conduct, by the UCBR did not Claimant’s Refining Company at risk. United mitigat- whether Claimant’s unusual consider Unemployment Compensation Board Re- v. against a conclu- circumstances militated view, (Pa.Cmwlth.), appeal de- 661 A.2d 520 of willful misconduct. sion nied, 672 A.2d 312 "applied exception is to be on a this Altemus, multi- In we held that teacher’s 5. basis, by considering case all of the cir- case driving ple while intoxicated convictions for Unemployment Com- cumstances.” Finch v. students saw the teacher and the fact that pensation 692 A.2d Board of mis- state constituted willful an intoxicated (Pa.Cmwlth.1997). recently We stressed importance considering mitigating circum- we determined that a school stances when Reitmeyer, a teacher's we concluded that policy 6. In im- zero tolerance district’s "joke sheet” constitut- of a racist distribution superintendent’s discre- nullified a penal- misconduct. ed willful tion tc recommend modification of imposition higher of a standard of con- duct.7 WESTMORELAND COUNTY must,

Considering, as we see Finch v. Unemployment Compensation Board GROUP, RTA INC. Westmoreland (Pa.Cmwlth.1997), 692 A.2d 619 all Bar Association. of the facts and circumstances concerning Group, Inc., Appellant. RTA transportation of the unloaded property, I would Pennsylvania. Commonwealth Court of conclude as a matter of law that Claimant’s Argued Nov. 1999. one-time, inadvertent Employ- violation of Feb. Decided er’s weapons policy does not rise to the level of willful Accordingly, deny-

would reverse the decision UCBR’s

ing Claimant benefits. Holly In 415 A.2d 940 In Bai- ley, we held that a claimant’s violation of a (1992), company’s weapons A.2d 80 policy by having a razor (1993), we held a health care in his truck constituted willful misconduct. care, professional to a standard of Bailey distinguishable on several ruling that her inadvertent misidentification grounds. Bailey, In the claimant on the patient’s sample of a four blood occasions verge being discharged for other reasons. hospital procedure in violation of constituted Although the claimant he testified that had explained willful misconduct. We as a forgotten truck, company razor was employee’s negligence, pa- result of the reject- this defense of inadvertence undergone tient could have additional unnec- Additionally, ed as incredible the UCBR. essary hospital tests or and the treatments employer’s weapons the claimant violated the any could have been liable for harm suffered policy placed weapon when he *7 Co., patient. Refining Id. In United we truck, company obviously an act that was not pumper held an oil to a standard of contrast, inadvertent. Claimant did There, we ruled that the inadver- Employer's policy by placing not violate tent failure to secure a valve on an car; rather, shotguns in her Claimant violat- tank, resulting gallons oil in several thousand when, Employer’s weapons policy having ed spilling system, of oil into water treatment forgotten guns’ presence about the lawful negatively impacting the environment and car, inadvertently transported them causing pay fines and bear property. There has been no expense up, of clean constituted willful finding testimony in this re- cases, In both those the em- Thus, gard was not credible. unlike the viola- ployees disciplined past had been for Bailey, tion in Claimant's violation of similar misconduct and there was evidence of was, fact, weapons policy inadvertent. Pri- employees’ jeopardized how the misconduct similarly distinguishable or is because placed There, intentional nature of the violation. at risk. In stark contrast brought a vial claimant testified that he lacking. such evidence was gunpowder employer’s property onto the analysis, subsequently forgot arguing In inadvertent mislaid it and that Claimant’s con misconduct, Employer duct constitutes willful about it until it was discovered two and a half Bailey Unemployment Compensa years later. There was relies on no intentionally brought gunpowder tion Board Pa.Cmwlth. claimant (1983) Bailey neither nor con- and Prior to work. Prior Compensation trols the outcome here.