 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Union Tank Car Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review6/21/2002
Union Tank Car Company (Employer) appeals from an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which reversed a referee's decision finding Marie Wolford (Claimant) ineligible for benefits because of willful misconduct, pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm the order of the Board.
The Board's findings of fact set forth the following events that resulted in Claimant's discharge. Claimant was employed as a payroll personnel clerk for Employer from April 21, 1993 through March 14, 2001. Following Claimant's last day of work, she was on approved disability leave. Claimant's short-term disability leave ended on May 20, 2001. Claimant submitted a disability certificate filled out by her psychologist dated March 19, 2001.
Claimant also submitted two forms for an extension of her short-term disability leave dated May 5, 2001 and June 12, 2001. Employer's insurance carrier disapproved Claimant's claim because it did not receive notes written by Claimant's psychologist. On July 13, 2001, Employer sent Claimant a letter asking her to return a Certification of Health Care Provider Form for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave that was provided by Employer on March 19, 2001. Employer discharged Claimant on August 16, 2001 for her failure to return the certification for FMLA leave and for unauthorized absence from work.
The Altoona UC Service Center disapproved benefits. The referee denied benefits, concluding that Claimant's failure to return the Certification of Health Care Provider Form rose to the level of willful misconduct as provided in Section 402(e) of the Law. The Board reversed, reasoning that Employer's requests were unreasonable. The Board stated that Claimant dutifully filled out the appropriate short-term disability forms and that Employer has provided no justifiable reason for its insurance carrier's request that Claimant provide her psychologist's personal notes. The Board further concluded that Employer was unjustified in disciplining Claimant for failing to apply for FMLA leave. Employer has filed an appeal with this Court.
Whether an employee's actions amount to willful misconduct is a question of law subject to this Court's review. Sheets v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 708 A.2d 884 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). The term "willful misconduct" has been judicially defined as: (1) an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. Sheetz, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 578 A.2d 621 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). Where an employee has been discharged based upon his willful misconduct in violating a work rule of the employer, the burden is on the employer to establish the existence of the work rule, its reasonableness, and its violation. Metropolitan Edison Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 606 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992). Once the employer proves the existence of a rule, its reasonableness, and the fact of its violation, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove that he had good cause for his action. Id.
Employer maintains that Claimant's failure to comply with Employer's request for her psychologist's notes constitutes willful misconduct. While Claimant submitted disability slips from her physician, these slips were not accompanied by medical records. In addition, through correspondence dated March 19, 2001 and July 1
Page 1 2 Pennsylvania Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|