 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review3/3/2000
SUBMITTED: September 24, 1999
The issue presented is whether the testimony of Nancy Kelly (Claimant) at a January 5, 1999 hearing constitutes substantial evidence to support a finding that she was discharged from her employment due to willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Act (Act). For the reasons set forth herein, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) is hereby affirmed.
The relevant facts are as follows. Claimant worked for the Greene County Prison (Employer) as a corrections officer in August of 1998 when the Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing (DOT) suspended her driver's license. Claimant failed to inform Employer of the status of her license, and she continued to drive while in the course of her employment as a corrections officer. On November 1, 1998, Claimant was stopped by the state police and charged with driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol and driving on a suspended license. On November 3, 1998, Claimant notified Employer of the DUI charge and was immediately discharged.
Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits on November 8, 1998. Her claim was denied by the Job Center on December 1, 1998, and Claimant appealed. A hearing was subsequently scheduled for January 5, 1999 before a referee. Employer , however, did not appear at the hearing, and Claimant was the only party to testify. The referee, by decision dated January 12, 1999, reversed the Job Center and granted benefits to Claimant because Employer "did not appear for the hearing in this matter and there is no evidence in the record which is competent to establish the reason for the claimant's discharge. Accordingly, the employer has not met its burden of proof and the claimant is not disqualified."
Employer appealed to the Board, which, by order dated February 23, 1999, remanded the case to the referee for a hearing to determine whether Employer had good cause for failing to appear at the January 5, 1999 hearing. The Board also stated that, if the referee determines that Employer had good cause for failing to appear at the January 5, 1999 hearing, additional evidence may be submitted by the parties on the merits of the case.
Pursuant to the Board's order, a second hearing was held on April 29, 1999, with the referee serving as the Board's hearing officer. Employer presented two witnesses at the April 29, 1999 hearing to offer testimony in an attempt to establish that it had good cause for failing to appear at the January 5, 1999 hearing and that Claimant's benefits should be denied based on the merits of the case. By decision dated May 19, 1999, the Board held that Employer did in fact have good cause for failing to appear at the January 5, 1999 hearing. Accordingly, the Board then considered the merits of the case, including the testimony presented by Employer at the April 29, 1999 hearing, and concluded that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct and is ineligible for benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Act. Claimant now appeals to this Court.
Whether the conduct for which an employee has been discharged constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law subject to appellate review. Runkle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 521 A.2d 530 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). The employer bears the burden of proving willful misconduct in order to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits under the Act. Jordan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 684 A.2d 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). Once the employer establishes a prima facie case of willful misconduct, the burden shifts to the claimant to prove that his or her actions did not constitute willful misco
Page 1 2 3 4 Pennsylvania DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|